Judgment 1. The case of the petitioner is that he was running a pharmacy under the name and style "Gomatha Ayurvedha Pharmachy" and he was granted L2 license under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations [Excise Duties], Rules, 1956, for the purpose of manufacturing Ayurvedic Arishtom and Asavas. The drug license was issued in Form No.25-D, bearing No.667, dated 18.11.1998, by the fourth respondent herein. The said license was renewed periodically and as per the renewal, the license was renewed up to 31.12.2003. Seeking to renew the license, the petitioner submitted an application, on 10.01.2008 before the second respondent herein. By proceedings, dated 08.04.2009, the second respondent rejected the said application. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the fifth respondent herein and the same was also dismissed, on 13.01.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision before the first respondent, on 20.02.2010. By proceedings, dated 22.10.2010, the first respondent rejected the said revision filed by the petitioner. Questioning the validity of all the above orders, the petitioner is now before this Court with the present Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the drug license was issued in Form No.25-D, bearing No.667, dated 18.11.1998, by the fourth respondent herein under the Rules. By virtue of the said license, the petitioner was engaged in the manufacture of Asawas and Aristas and the said license was valid up to 31.12.2003. The petitioner submitted renewal application, which was rejected by the first respondent, without following the procedure, provided in the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations [Excise Duties], Rules, 1956 and the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations [Excise Duties], Act, 1955 and the Rules made thereunder. The learned counsel further submits that the Appellate Authority merely reproduced the order of the District Collector and rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner, without assigning any reasons. Thus, the learned counsel prays for setting aside of the orders impugned. 3. The learned counsel, in support of his contentions, makes reliance upon the following judgments:- (i) W.A.No.2943 of 2011 etc batch, dated 19.04.2006 [C.Thiagarajan Vs.The State of Tamil Nadu]; (ii) W.A.[MD].No.559 of 2008, dated 05.01.2012, [The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Chepauk, Chennai, Vs. S.Natesan]; and (iii) W.P.[MD].No.3722 of 2007, dated 31.08.2007, [S.Natesan Vs.The Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Chepauk, Chennai.] 4. 3. The learned counsel, in support of his contentions, makes reliance upon the following judgments:- (i) W.A.No.2943 of 2011 etc batch, dated 19.04.2006 [C.Thiagarajan Vs.The State of Tamil Nadu]; (ii) W.A.[MD].No.559 of 2008, dated 05.01.2012, [The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Chepauk, Chennai, Vs. S.Natesan]; and (iii) W.P.[MD].No.3722 of 2007, dated 31.08.2007, [S.Natesan Vs.The Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Chepauk, Chennai.] 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the second respondent, on considering the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations [Excise Duties], Act, 1955 and the Rules made thereunder, rejected the claim of the petitioner, which was rightly upheld by the respondents 1 and 5, on the ground that if the license, as sought for by the petitioner is granted, it will lead to unregulated preparation, on which the State will have no control and it will affect, ultimately, the public health. Further, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has brought to the notice of this Court that Rule 94 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparation (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956, which makes it clear that no licence for the manufacture of Medicinal and Toilet preparations or renewal of such licence, should be granted to an applicant unless he possesses the licence issued under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and admittedly, the petitioner is not possessing the same. Hence, according to the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, the claim of the petitioner for L2 licence, is untenable. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is also pointed out that the petitioner had manufactured illicit arishtam in violation of the conditions of the licence, which resulted in rejection of his claim. The learned Government Advocate, therefore, submits that the orders impugned do not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. 5. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records carefully. 6. At the outset, this Court feels it appropriate to see whether the petitioner had complied with all the requirements prescribed under the law either for grant of licence or for renewal of the same. A perusal of the typed set of papers would show that the District Collector, by his proceedings dated 08.04.2009, had considered the compliances done by the petitioner in accordance with law, however, categorically rejected his claim for grant of L2 licence. A perusal of the typed set of papers would show that the District Collector, by his proceedings dated 08.04.2009, had considered the compliances done by the petitioner in accordance with law, however, categorically rejected his claim for grant of L2 licence. Moreover, the petitioner is bound to satisfy the authorities about his compliance of the Rules 94 and 95 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the proceedings in L.Dis.No.25/SLA(IM)/2012, dated 19.01.2012, by which, it is evident that the State Drugs Licensing Authority (IM), Chennai, had communicated to the petitioner that the application dated 03.01.2012, seeking renewal of licence had been under process as per Rule 157 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. It is not brought to the notice of this Court as to what had happened subsequent to the said communication. 8. In W.A.No.2943 of 2011, etc. batch, dated 19.04.2006 [C.Thiagarajan Vs.The State of Tamil Nadu], the Division Bench of this Court, held as follows: "18. In view of the above discussion and the statutory provisions as interpreted in various decisions of this Court and the Apex Court, we are satisfied that the relief as prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted. However, it is made clear that if any application is made for grant of licence, the authority concerned is bound to follow the procedure provided in the licensing chapter, particularly Rule-95 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956 and dispose of the application expeditiously." 9. In W.A.[MD].No.559 of 2008, dated 05.01.2012, [The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Chepauk, Chennai, Vs. S.Natesan], this Court held thus: "6. Aggrieved by the same, the State is on appeal before this Court. Except for the grounds raised in the Writ Appeal referring to the decision in Kanyakumari District Sidha and Ayurveda Vaidyar Sangam v. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 1996 SC 1314 and the judgments of this Court in W.P.Nos.38362 to 38365 of 2002 dated 10.10.2002 and W.P.Nos.17387 of 2001, etc. dated 31.10.2003, there is no substantial ground made out to show that the findings of the learned Single Judge are not based on any materials. dated 31.10.2003, there is no substantial ground made out to show that the findings of the learned Single Judge are not based on any materials. Paragraph 6 in the grounds of appeal states that there were oral complaints received from the general public, based on which the licence authority has inspected the site where the spirituous preparation of Ayurvedic medicines were found which are in violation of the relevant rules. Except for a general allegation, there are no materials referred to in the counter filed by the writ appellants. Assuming for a moment, the oral complaints were received against the respondent herein, in all fairness, the appellants should have placed the materials before the respondent for effective countering of the allegations. In these circumstances, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader placed reliance on the copy of G.O.Ms.No.1131, Prohibition and Excise (VI) Department, dated 29.08.1984, giving the guidelines as regards the inspection to be conducted by the appellants. There is no doubt that the Excise Authority have the right to inspect and conduct search in a given case where licence given to the licensee had been abused in contravention of the terms of the licence and law. 8. When the materials placed before this Court does not in any manner show any violation, we fail to understand as to how the guidelines given in G.O.Ms.No.1131, Prohibition and Excise (VI) Department, dated 29.08.1984 by itself would be of any avail to the present case and hence, we reject the writ appeal and accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed confirming the order of the learned Single Judge. Considering the dismissal of the writ appeal, the appellants are directed to renew the licence of the respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs." 10. This Court, in W.P.[MD].No.3722 of 2007, dated 31.08.2007, [S.Natesan Vs. The Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Chepauk, Chennai.], has laid down as follows: "6. On the contrary, the entire file does not disclose any complaint from the public. But, the general statement of the Divisional Excise Officer is found to be reflected in the order of the District Collector in a twisted sense and the same thing is found in the order of the appellate authority. On the contrary, the entire file does not disclose any complaint from the public. But, the general statement of the Divisional Excise Officer is found to be reflected in the order of the District Collector in a twisted sense and the same thing is found in the order of the appellate authority. He has merely reproduced the order of the District Collector. The entire exercise of the respondents shows that the power given to them under the relevant enactment has been thoroughly misused and the petitioner's licences have not been renewed for untenable reasons. When the appellate authority has passed an order on the ground of the complaints being received from the public about the petitioner selling illegal intoxicant, then there is no basis for such a statement in the original file. On the contrary, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, has recommended the case of the petitioner and has specifically stated that there is no such complaint from the public in this regard. It was rather unfortunate that such things are not noted and statutory orders are passed by the respondents 1 and 2. By the orders of the respondents, the petitioner has been prejudiced and put to great loss as his licence not being renewed." 11. This Court is in entire agreement with the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions. 12. As the petitioner is not in possession of the licence granted under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and admittedly, his application dated 03.01.2012, is said to be pending before the State Drug Licensing Authority (IM), Chennai, as communicated by letter dated 19.01.2012, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, now, restricted his relief and prayed this Court to direct the authority concerned, viz., State Drug Licensing Authority (IM), Chennai, to pass orders on the application dated 03.01.2012, in the light of the relevant Rules. 13. Considering the limited scope of the relief sought for and the fact that the State Drug Licensing Authority (IM), Chennai, is not a party respondent in this writ petition, it is open to the petitioner to approach the said authority, who shall consider the application dated 03.01.2012, submitted by the petitioner seeking renewal of his licence under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with the relevant Rules, as expeditiously as possible, if not disposed earlier. 14. 14. This writ petition stands disposed of as above. No costs.