JUDGMENT : 1. Through the medium of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner- Naveed Medical Hall having been aggrieved of the restraint order issued by respondent-Drug and Food Organisation from conducting its business in its licenced premises, vide order dated 02.08.2023 seeks following reliefs:- a) Quashing Notice No. DCO/Camp/001/2023 dated 02.08.2023 passed by respondent No.7- Drug Inspector, District Ramban by virtue of which he has disallowed the petitioner from operating the firm with immediate effect i.e 02.08.2023 and sealed the shop of the petitioner asking him to appear before it within 10 days to explain his position in writing as to why license granted in his favour may not be suspended/cancelled. b) Commanding the respondents to de-seal the shop of the petitioner and allow him to continue the business of druggist without any hindrance. c) Quashing Order No. BMO/Batote/421-24 dated 02.08.2023 passed by respondent No.5-Block Medical Officer, Batote on whose instructions, Drug Inspector has passed the order. d) Restraining the respondents from causing any interference in the smooth running of the medical shop, except by adopting due course of law as provided under Section 22 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the procedure prescribed under Section 23 of the said Act and Drugs Rules, 1945. 2. The petitioner has pleaded that the order impugned passed by the Drug Inspector was without any authority and jurisdiction, as there is no provision under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ( for short ‘the Act of 1940’) to enter into the licenced premises and effect seizure of the shop. 3. The petitioner has contended in his petition that he is the proprietor of Naveed Medical Hall, Batote having been licensed by the Licensing Authority vide No. RIR/01/237 & RUR/01/236 dated 02.07.2012, which was renewed from time to time and is valid upto 1st July, 2027; that the petitioner has been running business of sale of medicine in the aforesaid medical hall since along and has been running the ethical trade practices by abiding the mandate of law/conditions of the licenses. 4. 4. It has been alleged that the respondents have issued the order impugned dated 02.08.2023 restraining the firm from conducting business with immediate effect till further orders asking the petitioner to appear to explain his position in writing as to why his licence may not be suspended/cancelled; that the petitioner replied to the said notice dated 02.08.2023 and requested respondent No.7 to withdraw the impugned notice which was sent to him vide registered post on 09.08.2023; that the petitioner filed detailed reply to the notice dated 12.08.2023 issued by respondent No.4-Chief Medical Officer Ramban, denying that the petitioner was running a genetic counselling centre, laboratory or clinic in the above said shop and was doing the business of sale of medicines as provided under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act; that the petitioner has not violated the rules and regulations on his part and during investigation no violation has been found, as no machine or expertise available in his shop to support the allegations that ultrasound was being done in the said medical hall except that two beds were found adjacent to the shop; that the impugned orders are illegal and without jurisdiction, there being no provision under the Act of 1940 and the rules framed thereunder, wherein the Drug Inspectors have been empowered to seal the premises or shops and finally it was prayed that the impugned order be quashed with direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner’s firm to conduct its business in terms of the License for the sale of medicines. 5. 5. Pursuant to notice, respondents 2 to 7 filed the objections to the petition asserting therein that a complaint filed by a women resident of Majalta, District Udhampur had been received from Grievance Cell of Hon’ble LG by CMO Ramban alleging that on 26.06.2023 when she was in a family way and had abdominal pain, she went to an Ultrasound Clinic situated at Bagu Nallaha Batote, for examination and the ultrasound technician, namely, Aqib Mir told her that heart rate of foetus was very high and she was referred to a clinic M/S Naveed Clinic for delivery as it was imperative to deliver the baby with caesarean as per Ultrasound report; that the complainant delivered a female baby at the said Naveed Medical Hall situated at Doda National Highway near Community Health Centre Batote by an unknown lady/nurse after charging an amount of Rs.8,000/-and she was allowed to go home after one hour of the delivery. However, after seeing the critical condition of the female baby by her parents at home and after due persuasion, the complainant along with her brothers went to Udhampur, where Dr. Chander Mohan Child Specialist, examined the female baby and declared as dead and that color of the baby had turned blue. 6. It was further pleaded that on receiving aforesaid complaint, cognizance thereof was taken by the CMO, Ramban and, accordingly, he constituted a team of Officers of Health Department comprising of Dr. Gurmeet Kour (BMO Batote), Dr. Shabir Ahmed (Consultant Gynaecologist) and Dr. Gourav Mahajan (Radiologist) of District Hospital Ramban and Mr. Davinder Singh Rana (Sr. Assistant) CMO Office Ramban to conduct enquiry into the matter. This investigating team of officers, alongwith Tehsildar Batote and SHO Police Station Batote visited the petitioner firm on 02.08.2023 and it was found that there was one shabby room adjacent to the Chemist shop, where two beds were also laid with single entry from chemist shop, which were probably used for conducting deliveries and abortions as placental remnants, blood clots, used gloves, blood soaked gauze pieces, used oxytocin ampoules and syringes were found littering on the road near the petitioner firm’s shop. It was also found that an additional area had been acquired, for conducting illegal/unethical deliveries/abortions by the wife of the proprietor of the firm and some other lady, in liaison with Matoo Ultrasound Centre in violation of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act 1994. The Drug Control Officer observed that the petitioner firm had altered the area of the licenced premises without approval. It was further asserted that vide the impugned order, the firm was asked to stop its operation till further orders and explain its position and meanwhile in exercise of powers under Section 22(1)(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 by the Drug Control Officer Ramban on 02.08.2023 the premises was sealed till further orders. The Licensing Authority also vide order dated 25.08.2023, suspended the licence of the petitioner firm w.e.f 03.08.2023 till enquiry in the matter is concluded. 7. Heard learned counsel for both the sides, perused and considered. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order could not have been issued by the Drug Inspector as the immovable property in the form of licenced premises of the petitioner firm could not even be sealed/seized in terms of sub- section (1) of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if at all the Drug Inspector can be conceived to be having the power of a police officer to investigate the matter like a criminal case, as the custody and seizure of the immovable property cannot be ordered even in a criminal case regarding which suspicion of commission is there. He has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case titled “Nevada Properties Private Limited vs State of Maharashtra & Anr”, reported as 2019 Legal Eagle (SC) 1047 to canvass his point. He has further argued that though the order of seizure could not be made in terms of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Rules framed thereunder by the Drug Inspector, however, even if the order issued in terms of Clause-C of Section 22, the order can only be for a specified period not exceeding 20 days and in the case on hand, the premises of the petitioner firm had been sealed in the month of August 2023, as such, this order cannot be allowed to be continued any further. He has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case titled “B. K. D Rajeswari vs State of Kerala & Anr”, reported as 1984 AIR (Kerala) 95, in this behalf and finally it was prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to carry on his licenced business in the premises of the Naveed Medical Hall at Batote without any hindrance. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents, ex adverso, argued that the petitioner firm had been licenced as a Chemist Shop for the sale of medicines, however, the proprietor of the firm in connivance with his wife had been using the said premises by creating an additional space and lying two beds for conducting illegal deliveries and abortions; that in view of the complaint and the facts gathered by the Committee of Officers it was found that the Chemist licence is being mis-used by the petitioner firm for committing illegal activities within its premises. He has further argued that the Drug Inspector was competent to issue notice to seek explanation of the petitioner firm for contravention of the licence provisions by committing offences in the licenced premises and also to seal the premises so as to restrain the proprietor and his wife from committing any illegal activities in the licenced premises. He has further argued that during the course of enquiry, the licence of the petitioner firm has been suspended and in such a situation, the petitioner in absence of a licence cannot be permitted to conduct his business in the licenced premises. He has further argued that the respondents-authorities are in the process of conducting enquiry and final decision with regard to the licenced premises is yet to be taken. He finally prayed that the petition be dismissed at this stage awaiting the outcome of the enquiry being conducted against the petitioner firm. 10. He has further argued that the respondents-authorities are in the process of conducting enquiry and final decision with regard to the licenced premises is yet to be taken. He finally prayed that the petition be dismissed at this stage awaiting the outcome of the enquiry being conducted against the petitioner firm. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the suspension of the licence of the petitioner firm, its licenced business cannot be carried on and submits that petitioner at this stage be allowed to take out his stocks of the medicines for their return to the suppliers as otherwise he shall suffer losses which cannot be compensated by any means, as some of the stocks of the medicines may expire awaiting the outcome of the enquiry being conducted by the respondents. 11. In view of this development that the licence of the petitioner firm had been suspended and plea raised on behalf of the petitioner firm not objected to by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner firm can be permitted to take out the stocks likely to expire, from the premises in near future for being returned to the suppliers so that the petitioner firm may not suffer loss on this count, a direction can be issued to the respondents to de-seal the premises for a period three days and the petitioner firm be permitted to take out the stocks from the premises for returning the same to the suppliers till a final decision is taken in the enquiry. 12. For the foregoing reasons and the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to de-seal the premises for a period three days, permitting the petitioner firm to take out the stocks from the premises for returning the same to the suppliers till a final decision is taken in the enquiry. Petitioner firm through its proprietor shall file an undertaking in this behalf and respondent-Drug Inspector shall comply this order. In case of conclusion of the enquiry with regard to cancellation of the licence, the petitioner firm shall be entitled to assail the same before the State Government in terms of Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 67-H of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, and the petitioner shall be at liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 13. Disposed of along with pending application(s).