Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 509 (AP)

Raja Sree Medicals v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-08-07

LALITHA KANNEGANTI

body2020
JUDGMENT Lalitha Kanneganti, J. - The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings in Rc.No.485/AD/DCA/TPT/2020 dated 20.05.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent in ordering for cancellation of drug licence granted to the petitioner to sell, stock, exhibit or offer for sale or distribute drugs as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for brevity "DC Act"). 2. Heard M/s S.Parineeta, learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health & Family Welfare appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent granted drug licence to the petitioner and thereafter they have established a shop in the name and style of M/s Rajasree Medicals at D.No.27/58/1-4, MBT Road, Punganur Town, Chittoor District. Basing on the article published in Andhra Prabha newspaper that "prajala naddi virusthunna medical shopulu" on 05.05.2020 stating that all the medical shops in Punganur Town are making use of the present situation and selling the masks, sanitizers etc. at much higher price in utter violation of COVID-19 rules and causing difficulty to the general public. Later, when the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent and the Municipal Commissioner, Punganur regarding the said issue, they quarreled with the petitioner and spoke to him in a harsh manner and threatened that they would see that his drug licence will be cancelled. Then the 3rd respondent and the Commissioner submitted a false complaint on 07.05.2020 against the petitioner on all baseless allegations before the Sub Inspector of Police, Punganur Police Station and requested to take action against the petitioner. Basing on that F.I.R No.185 of 2020 was registered. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.1927 of 2020 seeking to quash the F.I.R, wherein this Court granted interim direction by order dated 13.05.2020 and the quash petition is pending adjudication. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the article was published against so many medical shops, the 3rd respondent who is predetermined to cancel the drug licence of the petitioner and also take vengeance against the petitioner initiated action against the petitioner and issued a show cause notice dated 15.05.2020 calling upon him to submit explanation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the article was published against so many medical shops, the 3rd respondent who is predetermined to cancel the drug licence of the petitioner and also take vengeance against the petitioner initiated action against the petitioner and issued a show cause notice dated 15.05.2020 calling upon him to submit explanation. He further submit that the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 21.05.2020 stating that because of the COVID-19 situation and in view of heavy rush, he could not maintain the records in chronological order and that all the mistake would be rectified and requested to drop further proceedings. But without considering his explanation and with an intention to cause hardship to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has passed the impugned order cancelling the drug licence of the petitioner. He would further submit that though an appeal is provided under Rule 67 (2) of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, because of prevailing COVID-19 situation he approached this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents while placing certain material papers before this Court would submit that the allegations that are leveled against the petitioner cannot be termed as simple. The petitioner has never met the 3rd respondent at any point of time and the allegation leveled against the Commissioner that he has quarreled with the petitioner is denied. He would further submit that in fact the complaint is with regard to abusing the complainant C.Surendra Babu, who belongs to SC-Madiga community and the 3rd respondent belongs to the forward caste, as such making complaint under SC & ST Act by him is not correct. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that after publishing articles in newspaper, a thorough inspection was conducted and inspection report was also placed. Basing on that inspection report, the 2nd respondent issued show cause notice to all the medical shops including the petitioner's shop. The respondents denied the allegation of discrimination leveled by the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner while submitting explanation has accepted all the charges that are leveled against him and pleaded that he would not repeat the mistakes. After taking into consideration all these facts, the drug licence of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondents, which is already implemented by the 3rd respondent under acknowledgment. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner while submitting explanation has accepted all the charges that are leveled against him and pleaded that he would not repeat the mistakes. After taking into consideration all these facts, the drug licence of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondents, which is already implemented by the 3rd respondent under acknowledgment. Learned counsel would sum up his arguments stating that the impugned order is passed after duly following the rules and regulations incorporated in DC Act and as there is alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Rule 67 (2) of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, the writ petition itself is not maintainable. To support his contention, learned Government Pleader relied upon the order of this Court in W.P.No.3794 of 2020 dated 06.03.2020, wherein under identical circumstances the writ petition was dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply would submit that availability of alternative remedy cannot be a ground to non-suit the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is maintainable. 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, mere availability of alternative remedy cannot be a ground for dismissing the writ petition. Moreover, this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases have given exceptions where this Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain the writ petition in spite of availability of alternative remedy. 9. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not the case of the petitioner that a reasonable opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to cancel the drug licence or the impugned order is passed in violation of any of the statutory provisions. The only ground which is sought to be canvassed before this Court is that the respondents having bore grudge against the petitioner, passed the impugned order, though the offence is very minor offence. However, this Court is unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the contravention of provision of DC Act cannot be termed as a minor offence, because they will have life changing effect on the people. In view of the same, the writ petition is devoid of any merits. 10. However, this Court is unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the contravention of provision of DC Act cannot be termed as a minor offence, because they will have life changing effect on the people. In view of the same, the writ petition is devoid of any merits. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy available under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, if the petitioner prefer to do so. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.