Order Since common issues are involved in these writ petitions, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. W.P.(MD) No.230 of 2008: 2. The facts of the case: (i) The petitioner was holding Drug Licence No.955, dated 15.05.2000, issued by the Director of Drugs Control, Chennai, for manufacturing of Ayurveda Preparations of Asavas and Aristas. The said licence was renewed upto 31.12.2003. The petitioner applied for renewal on 18.12.2005 for the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2008 to the third respondent. The third respondent rejected the application, by order dated 01.03.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an appeal to the second respondent, who by order dated 31.08.2004, remanded the matter to the third respondent for fresh consideration. (ii) After the remand, again the third respondent rejected the said application, by order dated 08.11.2004. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's Pharmacy was sealed on 21.06.2004 for violation of Drug Licence. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was rejected by order, dated 01.07.2005 confirming the order of the third respondent. The petitioner's further appeal to the first respondent was also rejected by order dated 02.04.2007, confirming the same. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. The respondents filed counter affidavit denying the various averments made in the writ petition. According to the respondents, as per the direction of the second respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Nagercoil, inspected the Pharmacy run by the petitioner. During the course of inspection, the public nearby the Pharmacy informed the Assistant Commissioner (Excise) that the petitioner manufactured and sold illicit Arishtom to the consumers. Therefore, the Pharmacy was closed and the request of the petitioner for grant of L2 Licence was rejected by the third respondent District Collector, by his proceedings No.R4/85663/2001, dated 02.07.2002. The petitioner was manufacturing illicit Arishtom, which is illegal and it disqualifies the petitioner from getting Licence under the Rules. The petitioner was manufacturing illicit Madhukashayam and selling the same. Therefore, the Pharmacy was sealed. W.P.(MD) No.429 of 2008: 4. The facts of the case: The petitioner is a Hereditary Ayurvedic Physician, practising for the past 30 years. He is a recognised Ayurvedic Physician by the Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine, Madras. He is competent to treat the patients and also issued prescriptions to the patients, so that the patients can buy the drugs. W.P.(MD) No.429 of 2008: 4. The facts of the case: The petitioner is a Hereditary Ayurvedic Physician, practising for the past 30 years. He is a recognised Ayurvedic Physician by the Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine, Madras. He is competent to treat the patients and also issued prescriptions to the patients, so that the patients can buy the drugs. The petitioner obtained L3 Licence No.9/2001/2002 and under the Rules, it was valid upto 31.03.2002. He applied for renewal of the said Licence on 28.02.2002. The third respondent instead of renewing the Licence, issued a show cause notice in Na.Ka.No.37733/2002/Lo-4, dated 24.05.2002, as to why his application for renewal should not be rejected, as he has not commenced any manufacturing work during the Licence period of four months. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 04.06.2002. The third respondent by order, dated 18.06.2002, in Na.Ka.No.4.37733/2002, rejected the application for renewal and also cancelled the L3 Licence. The petitioner filed an appeal to the second respondent on 19.08.2002. The second respondent by his order, dated 27.10.2003, in D.DIS.P & E.I.(3)30613/2002, rejected the petitioner's appeal. Against the said order, the petitioner made an appeal to the first respondent. The first respondent has rejected his appeal, by order dated 17.01.2005, in G.O.(D) No.11, confirming the order of the second respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. The respondents filed counter affidavit denying the various averments made in the writ petition and stated that after obtaining L3 Licence in the year 2001, the petitioner did not commence any work during the Licence period upto 31.03.2002. The petitioner's application for renewal was rejected vide the District Collector's proceedings No.R4/37733/2002, dated 18.06.2002, for violation of licence conditions and there was no medicines available at the premises and he was not running Vaidyasalai in the licensed premises and he has not submitted any explanation for the show cause notice issued from the third respondent's office. Therefore, the application for renewal was rejected. The petitioner was granted L3 Licence for manufacturing of Ayurvedic Medicines, but he was not granted any Licence for the sale of Ayurvedic Medicines. Hence, the request for renewal of L3 Licence was rejected. W.P.(MD) No.479 of 2008: 6. The facts of the case: (i) The petitioner is the Hereditary Ayurvedic Physician for the past 30 years, approved by the Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine, Madras. Hence, the request for renewal of L3 Licence was rejected. W.P.(MD) No.479 of 2008: 6. The facts of the case: (i) The petitioner is the Hereditary Ayurvedic Physician for the past 30 years, approved by the Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine, Madras. (ii) The petitioner applied to third respondent for L3 Licence on 23.12.2003. The third respondent by order, dated 16.03.2004, in Mu.Mu.(Ma4)88126/03, rejected his application. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal to the second respondent on 30.03.2004. The second respondent, by his proceedings in D.Dis.P & E.I(3)10931 of 2004, dated 05.08.2004, remanded the matter back to the third respondent. The third respondent, by order dated 24.04.2005, in Mu.Mu.(Ma4)27803/04, once again rejected the application of the petitioner holding that the proposed building for manufacturing of Ayurvedic Medicine is not situated in the residential area, there are no equipments for manufacturing and there is no possibility of any patient coming there to get treatment. Therefore, he made an appeal to the second respondent on 10.05.2005. The second respondent rejected the appeal, by order dated 26.04.2006, in D.Dis.P. & EI (3) 21253/05. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal to the first respondent on 23.05.2005, which was rejected by the first respondent by the impugned order, dated 08.02.2007, in G.O.(D) No.54, Home, Prohibition and Excise (VIII) Department. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 7. The respondents filed counter affidavit denying the various averments made in the writ petition and stated that on inspection of the proposed building by the Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Nagercoil, it was found that the Vaidyasalai was situated in a lonely place and it was not suitable for conducting Vaidyasalai and reported that the petitioner had utilised the building only for preparing and selling Madhukashayam. It is further stated that the report of the Assistant Commissioner (Excise), need not be furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner was given full opportunity to put forth their case and the counsel for the petitioner was heard. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected after considering the written and oral representation of the counsel on behalf of the petitioner. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate reiterated the averments made in the affidavit and the counter affidavit. 10. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate reiterated the averments made in the affidavit and the counter affidavit. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Chapter VI of the Rules deals with the Licence procedure. Rule 82 of the Rules refers to procedure for obtaining Licence and Rule 84 refers to grant of Licence. The factors for consideration of Licence are provided under Rule 95 of the Rules. 11. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following Judgments: (i) C. Thiagarajan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Govt., Health & Family Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai and others [W.A.No.2943 of 2001 etc. batch, dated 19.04.2006], wherein in paragraph 18, it has been held as under:- "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." (ii) Dilip K.Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Others [ 2001 (9) SCC 373 ], wherein in paragraph 6, it has been held as follows:- "6. In our opinion, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant deserves to be accepted. The application made by the appellant was required to be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. What the authority was required to consider was whether the requirements of law were complied with or not by the appellant. Since the application of the appellant was rejected by the Commissioner on an extraneous consideration, the order passed by him deserved to be set aside. The High Court was wrong in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant." (iii) State of Bihar and Others Vs. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (P) Ltd., and Others [ 2005 (2) SCC 762 ], wherein in paragraph 27, it has been held as follows:- "27. The High Court was wrong in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant." (iii) State of Bihar and Others Vs. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (P) Ltd., and Others [ 2005 (2) SCC 762 ], wherein in paragraph 27, it has been held as follows:- "27. As stated above, an Ayurvedic medicinal preparation containing alcohol is capable of being used as an alcoholic beverage, just as an industrial alcohol is capable of being diverted to human consumption. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions that the manufacture of industrial alcohol is covered by the Central laws, however, its diversion can be regulated by State laws enacted with reference to Entries 6 and 8 of List II. Similarly, duty on manufacture of medicinal preparations containing alcohol would fall under the said 1955 Act, however, use and possession thereof will fall under the State law, like the said 1915 Act. Similarly, manufacture for sale of a substance containing alcohol as a drug would stand covered by the said 1940 Act, however, its use and possession as an alcoholic beverage would fall under the State law. Licensing and regulation of an activity like use/misuse of medicine is an enormous activity involving heavy expenditure. Hence, it is open to the State Government to delegate some of its powers to the Board of Revenue to prescribe forms of licence, licence fees, regulation of retail sales, etc. In the circumstances, the State as well as the Board was competent to issue the impugned notifications/communications under Sections 5, 19(4), 38, 39 and 90 of the said 1915 Act (as amended) to license and regulate the use of such preparations as alcoholic beverages. In the circumstances, we hold, that, the High Court had erred in holding that the impugned notifications/communications had encroached upon the field occupied by the said 1940 Act and the said 1955 Act and the Rules framed thereunder." 12. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate contended that the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.429 of 2008 did not make any arrangements for manufacturing drugs even after four months of granting licence and he has not established the Vaidyasalai in the licensed premises and was selling the Ayurvedic Medicines without licence. The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.429 of 2008 wanted to establish the manufacturing unit in a remote and lonely place and there is no possibility of any patient coming for treatment. The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.429 of 2008 wanted to establish the manufacturing unit in a remote and lonely place and there is no possibility of any patient coming for treatment. The petitioner had utilised the building only for preparation of selling Madhukashayam. 13. I have carefully perused the materials available on record and considered the arguments of the learned counsel on either side. 14. It is relevant to extract Rule 95(1) of the Rules. "95. Disposal of application for licence to manufacture medicinal and toilet preparations in a bonded/non-bonded manufactory by the licensing authority.- (1) On receipt of an application, licensing authority shall cause such enquiries to be made as it may deem necessary including enquiries into the following: (i) the qualifications and previous experience of technical personnel engaged in the manufacturing operation; (ii) the equipment of the bonded and non-bonded manufactory; (iii) soundness of the applicant's financial position; and (iv) suitability of the proposed building for the establishment of manufactory." 15. As far as the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 230 of 2008 is concerned, the Pharmacy run by him was sealed, as he was manufacturing and selling the illicit Madhukashayam. The petitioner has not challenged the sealing of the Pharmacy and on the other hand, he has only filed a miscellaneous petition for a direction to remove the seal. Once the Pharmacy and the Vaidyasalai are sealed, the petitioner is not entitled for any licence. In view of the sealing of the Pharmacy on the ground that the petitioner has manufactured and sold Madhukashayam illegally, he is not entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition. 16. As far as W.P.(MD) No. 429 of 2008 is concerned, the petitioner after obtaining L3 Licence in November 2001, he has not made any preparation for manufacturing of any medicines till March 2002. Without making any preparation, the petitioner has sought for renewal. As per Rule 95 of the Rules, the authority has to consider the availability of equipments for manufacturing medicine and suitability of the building for establishment of manufacturing. In this case, the petitioner has not made any arrangements for manufacturing. Therefore, the third respondent has rightly rejected the request for renewal. 17. As far as W.P.(MD) No. 479 of 2008 is concerned, the building in which the petitioner wanted to manufacture the Ayurvedic Medicine, is situated in a remote and lonely place. In this case, the petitioner has not made any arrangements for manufacturing. Therefore, the third respondent has rightly rejected the request for renewal. 17. As far as W.P.(MD) No. 479 of 2008 is concerned, the building in which the petitioner wanted to manufacture the Ayurvedic Medicine, is situated in a remote and lonely place. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the intention of the petitioner is to manufacture and selling the illicit Madhukashayam, is acceptable. As per Rule 95 of the Rules, the petitioner has to consider the suitability of the building for manufacturing of Ayurvedic Medicines. 18. In the present case, the third respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground of non-suitability of the building. The said order is valid and the respondents 2 and 3 have rightly rejected the appeals filed by the petitioners, as there is no reason to set aside the order of the third respondent. The petitioner filed a copy of the L3 Licence granted to various third parties. This will not advance the case of the petitioner, as each case has to be decided on the facts of the said case and on merits. 19. In the result, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.