Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 563 (CAL)

P. C. GUHA AND SONS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2004-08-23

SOUMITRA PAL

body2004
SOUMITRA PAL, J. ( 1 ) IN the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notification dated 10. 7. 1997 (for short "the notification") issued by the Director of Drugs control, West Bengal, the memo dated 2. 9. 2002 issued by the Assistant Director of Drugs Control, Midnapore District Office and the memo dated 5. 9. 2002 issued by the Deputy Director of Drugs Control, Bankura Regional Division Office. ( 2 ) MR. Roy Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the notification directing licensed firms willing to change (increase or decrease) their existing area of the premises to obtain fresh licence after submitting fresh application in respective form along with fresh sketch map and original T. R. challan depositing requisite fees for grant of licence is bad in law since it amounts to cancellation of the licence granted and such cancellation is illegal in view of Rule 66 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (for short the "the Rules" ). Thus, it is submitted that the notification should be quashed. ( 3 ) I have heard Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the State-respondents. No affidavit- in-opposition has been filed in spite of directions. ( 4 ) SECTIONS 6 (2), 12, 33 and 33n of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 empower the Central Government to make the Rules. Rules have been framed. ( 5 ) RULE 66 of the Rules prescribes the manner in which a licence can be cancelled or suspended. The relevant portion of Rule 66 is set out hereinunder:"66. Cancellation and suspension of licences.- (1) The licensing authority may, after giving the licensee an opportunity to show cause why such an order should not be passed by an order in writing stating the reasons therefor, cancel a licence issued under this Part or suspend it for such period as he thinks fit, either wholly or in respect of some of the substances to which it relates, if in his opinion, the licensee has failed to comply with any of the conditions of the licence or with any provisions of the Act or Rules thereunder:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 6 ) IN my view, the notification directing existing licensed firms to obtain fresh licence in case of change of the existing area amounts to cancellation of existing licence. While cancelling an existing licence the provisions of Rule 66 have to be adhered to. Rule 66 obligates the compliance of the principles of natural justice prior to cancellation of licence-show cause notice must be issued and reasons must be recorded in writing prior to such cancellation. It cannot be done in the manner as sought to be done in the notification. In my view, the notification has been issued in complete violation of Rule 66 of the Rules- which is not permissible. Thus, the notification dated 10. 7. 1. 997 , the memo dated 2. 9. 2002 and the memo dated 5. 9. 2002 are in ::omplete violation of the rules. ( 7 ) HENCE, the notification No. DCWB/law-33-97/1032 (12c) dated 10. 7. 1997, memo No. DCBK/ Mid/2002/477 dated 2. 9. 2002 and the memo No. DCBK/2002/ 473/1 (2) dated 5. 9. 2002 are set aside and quashed. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. ( 9 ) URGENT xerox certified copy of this order be given to the appearing parties, if applied for, on priority basis. Writ petition allowed.