Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 975 (ALL)

TRIBHUWAN MITTAL v. UNION OF INDIA

2003-04-28

MARKANDEY KATJU, R.S.TRIPATHI

body2003
M. KATJU, J. This writ petition has been filed against the enhancement of fee of drugs licence by the Drugs and Cosmetics (6th Amendment) Rules, 2001, Annexure 3 to writ petition, and for a mandamus directing the respondents to renew the petitioners licence at the fee existing prior to the amended Rules of 2001 without imposing penalty. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. In this case on 19-12-2001 the respondents were granted three weeks time to file counter-affidavit but as yet no counter- affidavit has been filed. 4. The petitioner claims to be the licence holder for sale of drugs vide Annexure 1 to the writ petition. This licence was granted under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The licence was granted under Section 18 of the said Act. Under Rule 59 (1) the State Government may appoint Licensing Authorities. Under Rule 59 (4) the fees on the application for grant or renewal of licence is Rs. 40 + additional fee of Rs. 50 per month or part thereof. The duration of the licence is for two years from the date of issuance. True copy of the Rule is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. 5. The State Government notified all the Drugs Licensing Authorities working under the administrative control of the Director of Health, U. P. to be the Licensing Authority under the Act. Hence the Respondent No. 4 is licensing authority at Muzaffarnagar. 6. By the impugned Rule the fee for grant or renewal of licence has been increased from Rs. 40 to Rs. 1,500 + an additional fee at the rate of Rs. 500 per month or part thereof in Form 19, Rs. 500 + an additional fee at the rate of Rs. 250 per month or part thereof in Form 19-A and Rs. 500 + an additional fee at the rate of Rs. 250 per month or part thereof in Form 10-C vide Annexure 3 to the writ petition. 7. It is alleged in paragraph 8 of the writ petition that this enhancement of the fee is unreasonable and an uneconomic burden amounting to unreasonable restriction on the petitioners fundamental rights to carry on his business. The petitioner applied for renewal of licence as it expired on 31-12-2001 but the respondents refused to renew it in absence of enhanced fees. 8. The petitioner applied for renewal of licence as it expired on 31-12-2001 but the respondents refused to renew it in absence of enhanced fees. 8. In our opinion there is no merit in this petition. The petitioner has not disputed the competence of the State Government in fixing the licence fee. The only objection is that the enhancement is exorbitant. In our opinion, the enhancement cannot be said to so exorbitant as to amount to an unreasonable restriction on the right of the petitioner to do trade and business under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. Primarily it is for the Government to decide at what rate licence fee is to be fixed and not for this Court. We find no violation of Article 19 (1) (g) or Article 14 of the Constitution. 9. The petition is dismissed accordingly. Petition dismissed. .