Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 9 (GAU)

State of Nagaland v. Bendangrenla

2018-01-04

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, NELSON SAILO

body2018
JUDGMENT : Micheal Zothankhuma, J. Heard Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. A Zho, the learned counsel for the sole respondent. 2. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 8-4-2016 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 193(K)/2015 (Reported in (2016) 3 Gau LT 725) allowing the writ petition. The writ petitioner is now arrayed as the sole respondent in the present writ appeal but for convenience's sake, he is being referred to as the writ petitioner hereafter. 3. The writ petitioner having expired on 24-2-2016 was allowed to be substituted by his wife Smti. Bendangrenla vide order, dated 24-4-2017 passed in I.A. No. 109 (K)/2016. The facts of the case as may be required for disposal of the present appeal may be narrated at the outset. 4. The writ petitioner is a license holder for medicine wholesale/distributorship having registration DL/NL-376/377(M) and running business at Dimapur. Vide the impugned communication, dated 21-9-2015, the Assistant Drugs Controller, Dimapur asked the writ petitioner to submit detail invoice of purchase and sale of cough syrup containing codeine along with company's name of the product for the period April, 2014 to September, 2015 on or before 25-9-2015. 5. Since the writ petitioner failed to make any response, a show-cause notice, dated 28-9-2015 was issued, asking him to show-cause within a week, as to why action should not be taken against him for violating Section 18-B, punishable under Section 27(d) and section 22(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Act of 1940 in short) and violation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (Rules of 1945 in short), punishable under Section 28-A. It was further mentioned that the writ petitioner had violated the Circular, dated 17-9-2012 issued by the State Drugs Controlling Authority, Government of Nagaland with regard to purchase and sale of restricted drugs. 6. Against the show-cause notice, dated 28-9-2015, the writ petitioner submitted a letter, dated 5-10-2015 informing the Assistant Drug Controller, Dimapur that he had not received the letter, dated 21-9-2015 and that due to paucity to time, he could not collect all the records as it pertained to a period of over one year. He therefore, requested for extension of time for another one month. 7. He therefore, requested for extension of time for another one month. 7. The letter, dated 5-10-2015 of the writ petitioner was respondent to by the Chief Medical Officer, Dimapur through the Assistant Drug Controller Dimapur, by issuance of an order, dated 7-10-2015 whereby, 5 days time was given to him to furnish all the necessary documents of purchase and sale record/registers as per Rule 65 of the Rules of 1945, particularly under Rule 65(6), w.e.f. the date of issue of the order. It was further mentioned that failure to comply with the direction would invite closure/sealing of firm/shop and legal action taken under appropriate sections of the Act of 1940 and the Rules of 1945 without further notice. Aggrieved, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 193(K)/2015. 8. The writ petitioner in his writ petition contended that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (writ appellant Nos. 2 and 3) did not have the power or jurisdiction to issue the impugned orders, inasmuch as, under the Act of 1940, such powers are only vested with the Drug Inspector and not with any other official. Further, Rule 65(6) of the Rules of 1945 did not have any relevance to the case, inasmuch as, the same relates to production of record/registers on being demanded by the Drug Inspector duly appointed under the Act of 1940. Therefore, as no demand was made by the Drug Inspector, in the absence of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 being conferred the powers of a Drug Inspector, the impugned notices and order were unsustainable. The writ petitioner further denied the applicability of Section 18-B, 22(3), 27(d) and 28-A of the Act of 1940 since Section 18-B relates to maintenance of records and furnishing of information in terms of license issued by the authority. As there was no allegation of violation of any conditions of the license issued to the writ/petitioner, Section 18-B could not be attracted. The writ petitioner also denied the applicability of Section 22(1) (cca) of the Act of 1940 as the same relates to the power of a Drug Inspector, duly appointed under the Act of 1940. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 not being a Drug Inspector had no power to take any action against the writ petitioner pursuant to the show-cause notice and the order issued by them. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 not being a Drug Inspector had no power to take any action against the writ petitioner pursuant to the show-cause notice and the order issued by them. Thus, the writ petitioner sought for setting aside the impugned letter, dated 21-9-2015, show-cause notice, dated 28-09-2015 and the order, dated 7-10-2015. 9. The appellants, as respondents in the writ petition, filed their affidavit-in-opposition on 30-11-2015 contending inter alia that the State Government, effective enforcement of drugs control, issued a Notification, dated 21-08-2007 notifying a division of 3 zones in the State of Nagaland under the State Drug Control Wing. They contended that each of the zones was being supervised by an Assistant Drug Controller. As on that date, out of the 11 districts existing in the State of Nagaland, only 8 districts had Drug Inspectors and for the remaining 3 districts, since there were no Drug Inspectors, the Zonal Officers i.e., the Assistant Drug Controller functioned as the Drug Inspector. Further, the Chief Medical Officer of the district functioned as the Ex-Officio Controlling Authority of the Drugs Control Wing in the respective district. The State Government, in order to check the rampant misuse and abuse of some pharmaceuticals products in the State issued a Circular dated 17-9-2012, directing all concerned to strictly follow the guidelines provided therein, which included submission of a list of restricted drugs supported by authorization/relevant documents from the company/marketing agency to the local drug regulatory authority. The appellants contended that despite the clear directives given in the Circular dated 17-9-2012, the respondent/writ petitioner was conducting his business in violation of the Circular by failing to submit the quarterly purchase and sales record to the District Drug Regulatory Officers. 10. The writ petition came up for consideration before the learned single Judge on 28-1-2016 and thereafter, vide judgment and order, dated 8-4-2016, the impugned order, dated 21-9-2015, show-cause, dated 28-9-2015 and the order, dated 7-10-2015 were held to be illegal and therefore, they were set aside and quashed. Aggrieved, the State respondents in the writ petition are before this Court through this instant writ appeal. 11. Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel appearing for the writ appellants submits that there is no dispute to the fact that the appellant Nos. Aggrieved, the State respondents in the writ petition are before this Court through this instant writ appeal. 11. Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel appearing for the writ appellants submits that there is no dispute to the fact that the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the Controlling Authority of Drug Inspectors and therefore, there was no occasion or necessity to produce records for proving the legitimacy of the appointment of the Drug Inspector or the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 as the Controlling Authority. Therefore, it was erroneous on the part of the single Judge to come to the conclusion that the appellants failed to produce any notification issued by the State Government appointing the Drug Inspector or the Controlling Authority. He submits that for the Dimapur district, Shri Martemjen was the Drug Inspector and therefore, under such circumstances, it was not proper for the learned single Judge to conclude that the appellants had failed to show any notification issued by the State Government appointing a Drug Inspector. He further submits that the Assistant Drugs Controller of the Dimapur district is the Controlling Authority of Drug Inspector, Dimapur and the appellant No.2 by virtue of being the Chief Medical Officer of Dimapur, functions as the Ex Officio Controlling Authority of the Drugs Control Wing of the district. Therefore, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 being the Controlling Authority of the Drug Inspector, Dimapur, the learned single Judge could not have come to a finding that the appellants did not show any order appointing the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 as the Controlling Authority of the Drug Inspector. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned single Judge travelled beyond the issue raised in the writ petition, inasmuch as, the appointment of Drug Inspectors and the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were not the subject-matter in issue, but the case of the writ petitioner was that under the Act of 1940 and Rules, 1945, only Drugs Inspector is empowered to compel the licensee to produce records, register etc. and to institute prosecution. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the order, dated 7-10-2015 impugned by the writ petitioner was only a order directing him to furnishing necessary documents of purchase and sales record/registers and not an order imposing a penalty upon the writ petitioner. and to institute prosecution. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the order, dated 7-10-2015 impugned by the writ petitioner was only a order directing him to furnishing necessary documents of purchase and sales record/registers and not an order imposing a penalty upon the writ petitioner. The order merely mentioned that failure to comply with the directives would invite closure/selling of firm/shop and legal action under the appropriate provisions of the Act of 1940 and Rules, 1945. He therefore submits the findings of the learned single Judge was wholly unfounded and misconceived. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the finding of the learned single Judge that there was no notification issued by the State Government either appointing Drugs Inspector or the Controlling Authority under the Act of 1940 and Rules of 1945 has virtually declared the Licensing Authority an illegal entity. He submits that though the Licensing Authority has risen from the rank of his initial appointment as Drugs Inspector to the rank of Deputy Director, the Licensing Authority has been referred to as illegal. Therefore the decision of the learned single Judge has left the business of purchase and sale of all kind of Drugs and Pharmaceutical products without any control or supervision by any authority, He thus submits that the impugned Judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge cannot be sustained and accordingly should be set aside. 14. Appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner Mr. A. Zho, the learned counsel submit that under the Act of 1940 and the Rules of 1945, only a Drugs Inspector, appointed under the provisions prescribed therein are authorized to conduct inspection of documents and registers in relation to procurement and sale of Drugs by Pharmaceuticals, stockists or wholesalers. In this connection he refers to sections 21, 22 and the 23 of the Act of 1940. He submits that the respondent No. 2, as the Chief Medical Officer, has no authority to requisition the documents pertaining to in-voice of purchase and sale of cough syrups, containing codeine. Likewise, the Assistant Drugs Control, Dimapur also has no authority to requisition the documents aforesaid from the writ petitioner. He submits that the respondent No. 2, as the Chief Medical Officer, has no authority to requisition the documents pertaining to in-voice of purchase and sale of cough syrups, containing codeine. Likewise, the Assistant Drugs Control, Dimapur also has no authority to requisition the documents aforesaid from the writ petitioner. By referring to Section 18-B of the Act 1940, he submits that any officer or authority exercising the power or discharging any function under the Act of 1940, other than the Drugs Inspector, can carry out the inspection of document relating to sale and procurement of drugs, subject to being authorized to do so. He submits that the appellants have not been able to produce any notification authorizing the Chief Medical Officer and the Assistant Drug Controller to requisition such documents for inspection. That being the position, the impugned letter, dated 21-9-2015, the show-cause notice dated 28-9-2015 and the order, dated 7-10-2015 cannot be sustained and the same should be quashed. He thus prays that the judgment and order, dated 8-4-2016 passed by the learned single Judge should be upheld. 15. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the rival parties and have also perused the materials available on record. The issue to be decided is, as to whether the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 can order the writ petitioner to produce the detail in-voice of the purchase and sale of cough syrup and further, whether he could have the issued the show-cause notice dated 28-9-2015 and the order, dated 7-10-2015. With regard to the submission of the appellant's counsel that the learned single Judge could not have decided the writ petition on points not raised in the writ petition, we find that though there is substance in the submission made by the appellant's counsel, the issues decided by the learned single Judge has to be gone into, as the learned single Judge has held that the Drug Inspectors and the Controlling Authority have not been appointed under the Act of 1940 or the Rules of 1945. As such, the implication of the impugned judgment and order is that Section 22 and other penal provisions of the Act of 1940 cannot be enforced in the State of Nagaland, unless appointments of Drug Inspectors and the Controlling Authority are made as per the Act of 1940 and the Rules of 1945. 16. As such, the implication of the impugned judgment and order is that Section 22 and other penal provisions of the Act of 1940 cannot be enforced in the State of Nagaland, unless appointments of Drug Inspectors and the Controlling Authority are made as per the Act of 1940 and the Rules of 1945. 16. The learned single Judge disposed of W.P.(C) No. 193(K)/2015 vide judgment dated 8-4-2016 held as follows :- "This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned special counsel for the State respondents that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the Controlling Authority and that the Drug Inspector is under the control of the controlling Authority. The submissions of the learned special counsel for the State respondent would hold good had there been an order appointing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as the Controlling Authority as prescribed under Rule 50 with the qualifications as prescribed under Rule 50-A of the Rules of 1945. In the present case, they have miserably failed to show any notification/order being issued by the State Government appointing them as Controlling Authority. It is also to be noted that the Act of 1940 has penal consequences. Therefore, the respondents while exercising powers under the Act of 1940 has to be specifically notified allowing them to exercise such power by the State Government. For that matter, even the appointment of Drugs Inspector will have to be done strictly in terms of Section 21 of the Act of 1940. It appears that there is no notification issued by the State Government either appointing the Drug Inspector or the Controlling Authority under the Act or Rules. In absence of such notification, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have acted illegally while issuing the impugned letter, dated 21-9-2015, show-cause notice dated 28-9-2015 and the order, dated 7-10-2015. 13. Another important point of note is that Section 32 of the Act of 1940 clearly provides for taking cognizance of offence committed under Chapter 4 of the Act of 1940. There is no provision in the Act by which the closure of business of an offender has been prescribed. Therefore, the impugned order, dated 7-10-2015 by which the petitioner was intimated for closure/sealing of Firm/Shop is also unfounded and is held to be illegal.- 17. There is no provision in the Act by which the closure of business of an offender has been prescribed. Therefore, the impugned order, dated 7-10-2015 by which the petitioner was intimated for closure/sealing of Firm/Shop is also unfounded and is held to be illegal.- 17. Section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 states as follows :- "21. Inspectors.- (1) The Central Government or a State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such persons as it thinks fit, having the prescribed qualifications, to be Inspectors for such areas as may be assigned to them by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be. (2) The powers which may be exercised by an Inspector and the duties which may be performed by him, the drugs or [classes of drugs or cosmetics or classes of cosmetics] in relation to which the conditions, limitations or restrictions subject to which such powers and duties may be exercised or performed shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) No person who has any financial interest [in the import, manufacture or sale of drugs or cosmetics] shall be appointed to be an Inspector under this section. (4) Every Inspector shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and shall be officially subordinate to such authority, having the prescribed qualification,] as the Government appointing him may specify in this behalf.- - A persual of the Act of 1940 shows that Section 22 defines the powers of the Drug Inspector with regard to inspection of any premise, taking samples of any drug or cosmetics, search of any building or vehicle, etc., examine records and calling of persons to produce records or other documents relating to manufacture, sale or distribution of any drug or cosmetics. There is no provision given in the Act of 1940 to show that any other authority has the power of a Drug Inspector, as provided under Section 22. Sections 23 & 24 of the Act of 1940 provides for the procedure to be followed by an Inspector before action is taken under Section 22. The Act of 1940 does not provide for any other authority, except the Drug Inspector to have the power of calling for the records from a Drug License holder. Sections 23 & 24 of the Act of 1940 provides for the procedure to be followed by an Inspector before action is taken under Section 22. The Act of 1940 does not provide for any other authority, except the Drug Inspector to have the power of calling for the records from a Drug License holder. In the case of J. Jayalalitha v. State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in (2014) 2 SCC 401 : (2013 AIR SCW 5767), the Apex Court has held that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. 18. Rules 50 and 50-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 states as follows:- "50. Controlling Authority.- (1) All Inspectors appointed by the Central Government shall be under the control of an officer appointed in this behalf by the Central Government. (2) All Inspectors appointed by the State Government shall be under the control of an officer appointed in this behalf by the State Government. (3) For the purposes of these rules an officer appointed by the Central Government under sub-rule (1), or as the case may be, an officer appointed by the State Government under sub-rule (2) shall be a controlling authority. 50-A. Qualification of a Controlling Authority.- (1) No person shall be qualified to be a Controlling Authority under the Act unless- He is a graduate in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Chemistry or in Medicine with specialization in Clinical Pharmacology or Microbiology from a University established in India by Law; and He has experience in the manufacture or testing of drugs or enforcement of the provisions of the Act for a minimum period of five years. Provided that the requirements as to the academic qualification shall not apply to those Inspectors and the Government Analysts who were holding those positions on the 12th day of April, 1989.- - 19. The impugned letter, dated 21-9-2015, issued by the Assistant Drug Controller, asking the respondent to provide detailed invoice of purchase cough syrup is not in conformity with the provision of the Act of 1940, even though the Assistant Drug Controller might be higher authority than the Drug Inspector. The show-cause notice dated 28-9-2015 and order, dated 7-10-2015 have been issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Dimapur. The show-cause notice dated 28-9-2015 and order, dated 7-10-2015 have been issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Dimapur. Though the appellants counsel has tried to convince us that the Assistant Drug Controller and the Chief Medical Officer, being the Superior and Controller Authority of the Drug Inspector concerned, they have the power to issue the above letter, show-cause notice and order, the same cannot be accepted by us, in view of there being no power given to the Assistant Drug Controller and Chief Medical Officer to call for the records from the respondent under the Act of 1940. Further, no document has been produced by the appellants, showing that the Assistant Drug Controller, Dimapur or the Chief Medical Officer, Dimapur has been appointed by the State Government as a Controlling Officer under Rule 50 of the Rules of 1945. 20. Rules 50 and 50-A of the Rules of 1945 requires the word Controlling Authority under Rule 50(2) should be inserted in the appointment orders of a Controlling Authority of a State Government. In the present case, no such document showing appointment of the Controlling Authority in respect of the Assistant Drug Controller, Dimapur or the Chief Medical Officer, Dimapur has been produced. Further, no notification has been produced by the appellants showing that the Assistant Drug Controller, Dimapur and Chief Medical Officer, Dimapur have been given the power of a Drug Inspector. Accordingly, we are of the view that there is no infirmity with the decisions of the learned single Judge, in setting aside the impugned letter, dated 21-9-2015, show-cause notice dated 28-9-2015 and order, dated 7-10-2015, as the Assistant Drug Controller, Dimapur or the Chief Medical Officer, Dimapur did not have the power to issue the same. 21. The learned single Judge while disposing of the writ petition had also made an observation that there was no notification issued by the State Government, appointing the Drug Inspector under the Act of 1940 or the Rules of 1945. The appellants have produced a notification No. HFW/DOC/ESTT-1/2006-07 dated 25-9-2006, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Health and Family Welfare, showing that a number of Drug Inspectors have been promoted to the post of Assistant Drug Controller under Rule 7(a)(ii) of the Nagaland Health Services Rules, 2006. The appellants have produced a notification No. HFW/DOC/ESTT-1/2006-07 dated 25-9-2006, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Health and Family Welfare, showing that a number of Drug Inspectors have been promoted to the post of Assistant Drug Controller under Rule 7(a)(ii) of the Nagaland Health Services Rules, 2006. The appellants have also produced another notification No. MED-1/A/31/99 dated 24-3-2007, issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, showing the regularization of service of a Drug Inspector. There is nothing produced by the appellants showing that the appointment of the Assistant Drug Controller, Chief Medical Officer and the Drug Inspector has been made as per the Act of 1940 or the Rules of 1945. 22. A perusal of the Nagaland Health Services Rules, 2006 (though the Gazette notification has not been produced) shows that the said Rules have been made for the purpose of regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Nagaland Health Service. Rule 5 of the Nagaland Health Services Rules, 2006 shows that the service consists of 5 grades, i.e., (1) Super Selection Grade (2) Special Selection Grade (3) Higher Selection Grade (4) Selection Grade and (5) Senior Grade. None of the posts shown in Rule 5 of the Nagaland Health Services Rules, 2006 includes the post of a Drug Inspector, Assistant Drugs Controller or Drugs Controller. 23. Rule 7a(ii) of the Nagaland Health Services Rules, 2006 states as follows :- '7. Method Of Recruitment. (a) Recruitment to the service after the commencement of these rules shall be made by either of the following methods, viz.:- (i) By direct recruitment in accordance with rule 8; (ii) By promotion in accordance with rule 13.' Rule 13 of the Nagaland Health Services Rules, 2006 provides the procedure of recruitment by way of promotion to the various cadre posts included within the Nagaland Health Service Rules, 2006. No document has been produced by the State respondents to show that the post of Drug Inspector, Assistant Drugs Controller or Drugs Controller has been included as a cadre post under the Nagaland Health Service Rules, 2006. No document has been produced by the State respondents to show that the post of Drug Inspector, Assistant Drugs Controller or Drugs Controller has been included as a cadre post under the Nagaland Health Service Rules, 2006. Further, there is nothing to show that a person can be appointed to the post of Drug Inspector under Section 21 of the Act of 1940 or to the post of Controlling Authority under Rule 50 of the Rules of 1945 under the Nagaland Health Services Rules, 2006. 24. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Shri R. A. Chandawarkar & Ors., reported in 1999 Cri LJ 4449, the Bombay High Court has held at paras 40 and 41 as follows:- '40. It is to be noted that the provision of section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, makes it abundantly clear that the post of Drug Inspector is a very vital public post with wide range of powers to take samples and seize the samples and prosecute the persons for selling the adulterous, spurious and substandard quality drugs. In view of such vital powers conferred by section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 on such Drug Inspectors, the said section clearly, mandates that the Central Government or the State Government, may issue notification in Official Gazette so as to appoint such Drug Inspectors for such areas as assigned to them. The intention of the legislature is very clear from the said section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 that the appointment of such a person holding such an important post as a Drug Inspector, especially in the interest of public health, obviously will have to be notified in the Official Gazette and that the said notification should indicate the area in which the said Drug Inspector can exercise his powers. In fact, Section 21 does not say that the publication of notification in Official Gazette is discretionary. If one were to look at the wording of the said selection carefully, the Central Government or the State Government may appoint such qualified persons as the Drug Inspectors as it thinks fit. In fact, the wording of the said Section 21 shows that there is coma after the word may and not before the said word so as to construe that the issuance of the notification in the Official Gazette is discretionary. 41. In fact, the wording of the said Section 21 shows that there is coma after the word may and not before the said word so as to construe that the issuance of the notification in the Official Gazette is discretionary. 41. Taking into account all the purposes and objects of the Act and the powers conferred on the Drug Inspector who is the vital authority to initiate the prosecution, I hold that the appointment of Drug Inspector can only be through an Official Gazette Notification and not otherwise, I am also of the opinion that such a notification should also indicate the area in which such a Drug Inspector can operate and exercise his powers, and the same should not be left to conjectures and surmises of the public.' On perusing the above judgment and the provisions of the Act of 1940 and the Rules of 1945, we are in respectful agreement with the observations and findings of the Bombay High Court in the above case. 25. Section 3(e)(ii) of the Act of 1940 defines Inspector to mean, in relation to any other Drugs or Cosmetics, an Inspector appointed by the Central Government or a State Government under Section 21. Thus, a conjoint reading of Section 3(e)(ii) and Section 21 of the Act of 1940 requires that a Drug Inspector has to be appointed by invoking Section 21 of the Act of 1940 and the same has to be done by way of a notification in the Official Gazette. The appointment of a Drug Inspector under Section 21 of the Act of 1940 should also specify/indicate the area in which the person is going to be appointed as a Drug Inspector, so as to enable the appointed Drug Inspector to exercise his powers under Section 22 of the Act of 1940, upon such area as specified in the Official Gazette. In the present case, the appellants have not produced any appointment orders of Drug Inspectors issued under Section 21 of the Act of 1940 or of the Controlling Authority under Rule 50 of the Rules of 1945. 26. In the present case, the appellants have not produced any appointment orders of Drug Inspectors issued under Section 21 of the Act of 1940 or of the Controlling Authority under Rule 50 of the Rules of 1945. 26. For the reasons stated above, we find that the Notification, dated 25-9-2006 promoting Drug Inspector to the post of Assistant Drug Controllers and regularization of the service of a Drug Inspector by way of the notification, dated 24-3-2007, which has been relied upon by the appellant's counsel to support his submission that appointments of Drug Inspectors and the Controlling Authority have been validly made as per law, cannot be accepted, as they are not in conformity with the Act of 1940 or the Rules of 1945. 27. For the forgoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity with the decision taken by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, we do find that the Licensing Authority appointed under the Rules of 1945 has the power to close the business of a drug licensee under Rule 66 of the Rules of 1945 by way of cancellation or suspension of licenses. The appellants should also take note of the fact that prosecution under Chapter IV of the Act of 1940 will have to be instituted as per the requirements of Section 32 of the Act of 1940. 28. However, as the Act of 1940 or the Rules of 1945 have to be given effect to in the manner prescribed by law in the State of Nagaland, we direct the State Government to issue appointment orders under Rule 21 of the Act of 1940 to the present Drug Inspectors, which should be notified in the Official Gazette. The notifications should also indicate the areas in which the Drug Inspectors can exercise their powers. Further, the State Government shall also issue notifications under Rule 50 of the Rules of 1945 appointing the Controlling Authority under Rule 50 of the Rules of 1945. The State respondents are also at liberty to give powers of the Drug Inspector to the Controlling Authority by issuing further appointment orders under Rule 21 of the Act of 1940. The respondents are also given the liberty to act against the petitioner as per Rule 22 of the Act of 1940 afresh, after the appointments are made under the Act of 1940 and Rules of 1945. Appeal dismissed.