JUDGMENT : - In spite of opportunities being given none of the respondents filed any affidavit. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities failed to act in accordance with law in not granting a licence in favour of the petitioner to carry on his business. 3. The petitioner applied for licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The petitioner produced a Parcha to show that the occupied land on which the shop room is situated is not a government property. The petitioner also produced a declaration from the concerned local B.L. & L. R. O., to establish that the said property does not belong to government. The concerned local authority while considering the said application for grant of licence observed that on an earlier occasion the local B.L. & L. R. O. certified that the aforesaid plot of land belong to the Government of West Bengal. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to obtain ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the concerned department to run his business on the said land. The authority concerned relied upon a letter issued by the local B.L.& L. R. O. In that reply the authority mentioned that the said land is not a government property. Although much emphasis was laid on the issue that the said property is a government property and unless ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the concerned D.L. & L. R. O. is produced the petitioner could be allowed to carry on his business but the fact remains that under Rule 64 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 irrespective of the fact that whether the land belonged to the government or to a private individual all that the person interested to carry on business is required to satisfy to the concerned authority is that the premises in respect of which the licence is to be granted is adequate, equipped with proper storage accommodation for preserving the properties of the drugs to which the licence applies and the person in charge of a business is competent in the opinion of the licensing authority to supervise and control the sale, distribution and preservation of drugs. 4. Moreover, the respondent authorities could have called for information from the D.L. & L. R. O. if at all such exercise is necessary in order to satisfy the genuineness of the declaration furnished by the petitioner. 5. 4. Moreover, the respondent authorities could have called for information from the D.L. & L. R. O. if at all such exercise is necessary in order to satisfy the genuineness of the declaration furnished by the petitioner. 5. This Court is reminded of the fact that before granting a licence, the petitioner would be required to establish his occupation in respect of the premises in question and the concerned authority can call for documents to establish that the petitioner is in occupation of the concerned premises. The petitioner, prima facie, appears to be in occupation as it appears from a certificate issued by the local B. L.& L.R.O. If the Director of Drugs Control, West Bengal is of any doubt about the occupation of the petitioner in respect of the said premises irrespective of the said certificate, it is for the said authority to call for any information from the D.L. & L. R. O. 6. In view thereof, the ground on which the licence was rejected is unsustainable in law. 7. The order impugned is set aside. 8. This order will not prevent the respondent no. 2 to call for any information from the respondent no. 5 if at all it is necessary in order to ascertain whether the petitioner would be entitled to carry on business from the premises in question over which the petitioner lays a claim. 9. With the above observation, the writ petition succeeds. Let photostat certified copy, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.