Judgment Heard. 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing immediately. 3 By the order dated 2nd January, 2012, the Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration & Licensing Authority for Zone-2 cancelled the license issued to the petitioner under Rule 66 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (For short ‘The Act’) with effect from 16.2.2012. By the said order, the petitioner was informed that he can file an appeal under Rule 66(2) of the Act within the stipulated period before the Hon’ble Minister, Department of Food and Drugs, Maharashtra State. Petitioner accordingly, filed the appeal before the Hon’ble Minister , Department of Food and Drugs on 27th January, 2012. Copy of which is annexed at Exhibit D. Prayer (I) is for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the respondent no.3 and the Prayer (II) was for stay of the said order during the pendency of the appeal. Prayer (II) in the said Appeal reads as under: “(II) Pending hearing and final disposal of the appeal, the operation of the impugned cancellation order no. Parwane Radda /88/08-2011/2 dated 2.1.2012 be stayed.” 4 It is the case of the petitioner that on the date of presentation of the appeal, he argued the matter for interim stay during the pendency of the appeal. Petitioner, however, received the impugned order with covering letter dated 22.2.2012. Petitioner was shocked to know that the Hon’ble State Minister on the petitioner’s arguments on the question of grant of interim orders, disposed off the entire appeal. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the above said writ petition. 5 Petitioner submits that on the date of presentation of the appeal, he argued before the Hon’ble Minister for interim relief only, however, under the impugned order, the appeal itself was dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the above said writ petition. 5 Petitioner submits that on the date of presentation of the appeal, he argued before the Hon’ble Minister for interim relief only, however, under the impugned order, the appeal itself was dismissed. The petitioner has taken specific ground (a) to that effect which reads as follows: “(a) It is pertinent to note that after filing the appeal, the Petitioners immediately moved the appeal before Hon’ble Minister for State, Food and drug Department for interim stay, and the matter was heard by the Hon’ble Minister for granting of stay to the impugned order dated 2/1/2012 passed by Respondent No.3, however, the Minister by impugned order dated 21.2.2012 decided the Appeal itself without giving opportunity to the petitioners.” 6 On behalf of the respondent no.3, affidavit is filed by J.R.Malani, Assistant Commissioner. By this affidavit, petitioner’s contention on merits are denied. So far as the petitioner’s specific allegation in ground (a) is concerned, respondent no.3 has offered no comments. Respondent no.3 neither offered any comments nor has denied said allegations. In these circumstances, averment of the petitioner made in ground (a) of paragraph 5 deserves to be accepted. 7 In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that petitioner argued matter for interim relief. However, appeal itself came to be dismissed. Petitioner claims that he had no notice from the Hon’ble Minister for final disposal of the appeal. It is not the case of the respondents also that such notice was issued to the petitioner. 8 In my view, opportunity is required to be granted to the petitioner to argue his appeal on merits before the Appellate Authority and for that purpose, the matter is required to be remanded for hearing afresh. So far as the interim stay is concerned, this Court by the order dated 2nd March, 2012 granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d) in petitioner’s favour thereby the execution, operation and implementation of the order passed by the respondent no.3 was stayed. Even the order of the respondent no.3 cancelling petitioner’s license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was not given immediate effect and the same was to come into force after one and half month. In these circumstances, in my view, interim relief granted on 2nd March, 2012 deserves to be continued during the pendency of the appeal. Even the order of the respondent no.3 cancelling petitioner’s license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was not given immediate effect and the same was to come into force after one and half month. In these circumstances, in my view, interim relief granted on 2nd March, 2012 deserves to be continued during the pendency of the appeal. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed off by passing the following order: (i) The impugned order passed by the respondent no.4 on 21.2.2012 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Hon’ble Minister, Department of Food and Drugs Administration, Maharashtra State for disposal afresh on merits. The Hon’ble Minister shall dispose off the said appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order only, after hearing the petitioner and the respondent no.3. (ii) During the pendency and the final disposal of an appeal, the interim order granted by this Court on 2nd March, 2012 in the aforesaid writ petition shall remain in operation. In case, any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, the same shall not be implemented for a period of two weeks from the date of communication thereof to the petitioner. Rule made absolute accordingly. WRIT PETITION NO.1975 OF 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard. 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing immediately. 3 By the order dated 21st February, 2012 , the Assistant Commissioner Zone-2 , Food and Drug Administration & Licensing Authority for Zone-2 cancelled the license issued to the petitioner under Rule 66 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (For short ‘The Act’) with effect from 16.2.2012. By the said order, the petitioner was informed that he can file an appeal under Rule 66(2) of the Act within the stipulated period before the Hon’ble Minister, Department of Food and Drugs, Maharashtra State. Petitioner accordingly, filed the appeal before the Hon’ble Minister, Department of Food and Drugs on 27th January, 2012. Copy of which is annexed at Exhibit D. Prayer (II) in the said Appeal reads as under: “(II) Pending hearing and final disposal of the appeal, the operation of the impugned cancellation order no. Petitioner accordingly, filed the appeal before the Hon’ble Minister, Department of Food and Drugs on 27th January, 2012. Copy of which is annexed at Exhibit D. Prayer (II) in the said Appeal reads as under: “(II) Pending hearing and final disposal of the appeal, the operation of the impugned cancellation order no. Parwane Radda /88/08-2011/2 dated 2.1.2012 be stayed.” 4 Petitioner has taken specific ground that on the date of presentation of the appeal, he argued before the Hon’ble Minister for interim relief and when the impugned order was passed thereby the entire appeal was dismissed. The petitioner has taken specific ground (a) to that effect which is as follows: “(a) It is pertinent to note that after filing the appeal, the Petitioners immediately moved the appeal before Hon’ble Minister for State, Food and drug Department for interim stay, and the matter was heard by the Hon’ble Minister for granting of stay to the impugned order dated 2/1/2012 passed by Respondent No.3, however, the Minister by impugned order dated 21.2.2012 decided the Appeal itself without giving opportunity to the petitioners.” 5 On behalf of the respondent no.3, affidavit is filed by J.R.Malani, Assistant Commissioner. By this affidavit, petitioner’s contention on merits are held true so far as the petitioner’s specific allegation in ground (a) is concerned, respondent no.3 has offered no comments. So far as the petitioner’s contention in ground (a) is concerned, neither he offered any comments nor he denied said allegations. In these circumstances, submission of the petitioner made in ground (a) of paragraph 5 deserves to be accepted. 6 In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that petitioner argued matter for interim relief. However, entire appeal came to be dismissed. Petitioner claims that he had no notice from the Hon’ble Minister for final disposal of the appeal. It is not the case of the respondents also that such notice was issued to the petitioner. 7 In these circumstances, in my view, opportunity is required to be granted to the petitioner to argue his appeal on merits before the Appellate Authority. In these circumstances, matter is required to be remanded for hearing afresh. It is not the case of the respondents also that such notice was issued to the petitioner. 7 In these circumstances, in my view, opportunity is required to be granted to the petitioner to argue his appeal on merits before the Appellate Authority. In these circumstances, matter is required to be remanded for hearing afresh. So far as the interim stay is concerned, this Court by the order dated 2nd March, 2012 granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d) in petitioner’s favour thereby the execution, operation and implementation of the order passed by the respondent no.3 was stayed. Even the order of the respondent no.3 cancelling petitioner’s license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was not given immediate effect and the same was to come into force after one and half month. In these circumstances, in my view, interim relief granted on 2nd March, 2012 deserves to be continued during the pendency of the appeal. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed off by passing the following order: (a) The impugned order passed by the respondent no.4 on 21.2.2012 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Hon’ble Minister, Department of Food and Drugs Administration, Maharashtra State for disposal afresh on merits. The Hon’ble Minister shall dispose off the said appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order only after hearing the petitioner and thereon the respondent no.3. During the pendency and the final disposal, interim order granted by this Court on 2nd March, 2012 in the aforesaid writ petition shall remain in operation. In case, any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, the same shall not be implemented for a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the order to the petitioner. Rule made absolute accordingly.