The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a petition challenging the rejection of an application for renewal of manufacturing license. The court held that the case was for renewal, not cancellation, making a show cause notice and Rules of natural justice inapplicable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
c-f .J.^1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR
W.P.(c) N0.'53Sy OF 2010
PETITIONER
M/s Sardar Pharmaceutical, Through its Proprietor Narendra Pal • Singh, S/o' Sohinder Singh, aged- about 46 R/o Ganesh Ram years, Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG)
'fc'" i. '-' <•: !<-•<,
•f
vs
RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Health and Family Welfare A Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG)
i .n
-•'"2?T"?1~~;... •:;l-i.;&"'""-'*>.<»%^,,:;€:5B1SS/8'<;.<.
Licensing Authority, Office of Drugs Controller, (Ayurved Siddha Avam Unani), Directorate Ayush, Old Nurses Hostel Building, Mantralaya Campus, Raipur (CG)
•e
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
^y:
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH LBILASPUR
Single Bench: Hon'ble ShriJVIanindra Mohan Shrivastava, J,
W.P.(C)No.2358/1Q
PETITIONER
M/s. Sardar Pharmaceutical, Raipur
Versus
RESPONDENTS
State of Chhattisgarh and another
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Present: - Smt. Fouzia Mirza, counsel for the petitioner/s.
Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State.
ORALORDER
(Passed on 16th ofJuly, 2014)
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred against order dated 17/12/09 passed in appeal whereby the order rejecting petitioner's application for renewal has been affirmed.
01/01/04 upto 31/12/05. The petitioner initially moved an application for renewal of license on 07/12/05. Later on, the application in prescribed form 24-D referable to Rule 123 of the Rules of 1945 was submitted on 22/12/08 praying for renewal of license for the year 2009-11. This application was considered by the licensing authority / Drug Controller and the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 31/01/09 (Annexure P/5) that he should submit necessary documents as per the check list. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, as per the check list, the petitioner submitted detailed information and documents on 17/02/09. However, vide order dated 15/05/09, the licensing authority rejected petitioner's application for renewal of license. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred appeal though unsuccessfully giving rise to this petition.
The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in any case, the action of the respondents in rejecting petitioner's application
for renewal of license is arbitrary as the petitioner had submitted necessary information and documents, certified as per the check list provided to the petitioner and sought exemption from submission of Goods Manufacturing Practices (GMP) certificate on relevant considerations. The petitioner also sought breathing time to submit necessary documents with regard to technical staff but the licensing authority, without consideration of petitioner's application and prayer for exemption, rejected the application.
application for renewal of license. After considering petitioner's application, when it was found that necessary requirements have not been fulfilled, the respondents decided not to renew the license. Merely because the authoritystated in the order that license is cancelled, it does not amount to cancellation of license under the Rules of 1945. It is not a case where on any ground permissible under the law, the authority cancelled the license under the provisions of Rule 159 of the Rules of 1945. Present is a case of renewal of license and not cancellation of license. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no requirement of giving any notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why his license should not be renewed. There is no rule obliging the authority to follow such procedure before rejecting application for renewal.
^
arbitrariness in rejecting petitioner's application for renewal of license. However, as stated in the order itself, as and when the petitioner fulfills necessary requirement, it will be open for the petitioner to move appropriate application for grant of license.
ManindraMohanSteivastava Judge
Deepti
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a show cause notice under Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 was mandatory before rejecting an application for renewal of license.
Whether the licensing authority acted arbitrarily in refusing renewal due to non-submission of GMP certificate and details of technical staff.
5 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Sardar Pharmaceutical
State of Chhattisgarh
Licensing Authority
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
