Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 979 (UTT)

Aziz Khan v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-12-16

V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.10.2012 passed by the Drug Licensing & Controlling Authority, Directorate of Health Service, Uttarakhand, whereby the Drug License of the petitioner was cancelled. 3. The case of the petitioner is that on 21.10.2011, the petitioner was granted license to sell, stock or exhibit or offer for sale or distribute drugs by retail bearing License No. OBR-08/NTL/OCT/2011. The said license was granted for a period of five years. According to the petitioner, in the year 2012, one complaint was made by the respondent no. 4 against the petitioner before the Drug Controller & Licensing Authority, alleging therein that the rent agreement in favour of the petitioner has already expired and, as such, the drug license of the petitioner should be cancelled. Upon receiving the said complaint, the Drug Controller & Licensing Authority, Garhwal Division, directed the Inspector of Drug, Nainital to enquire into the matter. The matter was, thereafter, enquired and the report was submitted. On 26.10.2012, the Drug Licensing & Controlling Authority, Directorate of Health Service, Uttarakhand passed the order impugned. Against the said cancellation order, present writ petition was filed in the year 2012. 4. On 21.11.2012, the matter was heard by this Court and the petition was admitted. Further, stay order was granted in favour of the petitioner. The order passed by this Court on 21.11.2012 reads as under: “Mr. H.S. Dhillon, Advocate present for the petitioner. Admit. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand has accepted notices on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. Issue notice to respondent no. 4. Steps to be taken within a week. Counter affidavit to be filed within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit to be filed within three weeks thereafter. List this matter after seven weeks. The contention of the petitioner is that he runs a medical store for which he has a valid license from the Drug Licensing and Controlling Authority, Directorate of Health Services, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. However, the said license was cancelled by the licensing authority without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner has relied upon Section 67 H of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 in which the licensing authority can cancel the license only after giving the licensee a due opportunity to show cause. However, the said license was cancelled by the licensing authority without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner has relied upon Section 67 H of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 in which the licensing authority can cancel the license only after giving the licensee a due opportunity to show cause. This has not been done as it is not reflected in the impugned order dated 26.10.2012. In fact this is the principal contention of the petitioner that there is a violation of Section 67 H of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Until further orders of this Court, the operation and effect of the order dated 26.10.2012 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed.” 5. The contention of learned counsel for parties is that, at this stage, this petition has virtually been rendered infructuous, inasmuch as, the time period of the drug license, which was granted to the petitioner on 21.10.2011, has already expired. The only thing is that the application of the petitioner for renewal of the license can be considered by the competent authority. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that the order impugned passed by the Drug Licensing & Controlling Authority, Directorate of Health Service, Uttarakhand on 26.10.2012 should not come in the way of the Authorities while considering the application of the petitioner for renewal of the drug license of the petitioner. He also submitted that the application for renewal of drug license has already been filed by the petitioner and the same is pending consideration before the respondent no. 2. 6. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 would submit that such order can be passed; but, the application of the petitioner for renewal of drug license should be decided only after affording opportunity of hearing to the respondent no. 4. 7. At this, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no objection in case respondent no. 4 is also heard before passing any order on the drug license renewal application of the petitioner. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that decision will be taken on the pending application of the petitioner in accordance with law. 9. On these submissions being made, I dispose of the writ petition as follows: (a) The respondent no. 4 is also heard before passing any order on the drug license renewal application of the petitioner. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that decision will be taken on the pending application of the petitioner in accordance with law. 9. On these submissions being made, I dispose of the writ petition as follows: (a) The respondent no. 2 shall take decision on the pending application of the petitioner for renewal of drug license, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. (b) The petitioner as well as respondent no. 4 shall appear before the respondent no. 2 on 27.12.2016 and will place their case before the respondent no. 2 on that day. (c) The respondent no. 2 shall take decision in the matter untrammeled by his earlier order. 10. All pending applications stand disposed of. 11. Let a certified copy of this judgment be issued within 24 hours.