Srinivash Paul Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

Srinivash Paul Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent No. 3/concerned Tehsildar and SDM/Lokpal to forthwith unseal the petitioner's licensed medical shop (Avinash Medical Store) and restore possession to him without delay; respondents left at liberty to take fresh action strictly in accordance with law after proper notice, communication of grounds and full opportunity of hearing; future proceedings not to be influenced by observations in this order. No direction issued for disciplinary action against respondent Nos. 3-6 or for compensation for loss of livelihood; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in entering, searching, seizing and sealing the petitioner's licensed medical shop premises without authority of law, notice or adherence to due process is legal, proper and valid, challenged by writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. +2 more

Court's answer

Since till date no notice or show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was granted in respect of the alleged irregularities or the sealing action, the petitioner has been deprived of his right to carry on lawful business without following the due process of law.

Ratio / Principle

Even if any complaint was received against the petitioner, the respondents were duty bound to follow the principles of natural justice and the procedure established by law before taking such drastic action as sealing the licensed premises.

Key takeaways

Sealing of a business establishment without notice and without recording or communicating reasons cannot be sustained in law, as it directly affects the petitioner's right to carry on trade and livelihood.ratio¶44
The unwritten but firmly recognised principles of natural justice (nemo judex in causa sua and audi alteram partem) must be observed where necessary for a fair and just decision; if they or a legal requirement are not followed, that non-compliance may itself cause prejudice, and the affected person is not required to separately prove that actual prejudice was caused.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT PETITION DISPOSED OF — ILLEGAL SEALING OF LICENSED MEDICAL SHOP WITHOUT NOTICE OR HEARING — DIRECTIONS TO UNSEAL AND RESTORE POSSESSION. (High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, WPC No. 2351 of 2026, decided 08.05.2026, Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad.) A qualified pharmacist holding a drug licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 operated 'Avinash Medical Store' at Mawalibhata Main Road, Tokapal, District Bastar. On 28.04.2026 at about 4:00 PM, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Tokapal and Thana Incharge, P.S. Kodenaar) allegedly forcibly entered the shop, conducted search and seizure without notice, authorization or warrant, obtained signatures on a panchnama, and sealed the premises on the basis of complaints that a clinic was being run therefrom — without any notice, show-cause notice, opportunity of hearing, or communicated reasons. Held: (i) the admitted failure to issue any notice/show-cause notice or grant hearing meant the petitioner was deprived of his right to carry on lawful business without due process; (ii) even if complaints existed, respondents were duty bound to follow principles of natural justice and procedure established by law before so drastic a step; (iii) sealing of a business establishment without notice and without recording or communicating reasons cannot be sustained in law as it directly affects the right to trade and livelihood; (iv) the unwritten principles nemo judex in causa sua and audi alteram partem stand firmly recognised, non-compliance may itself cause prejudice, and the affected person need not separately prove actual prejudice. Directions: respondent No. 3/concerned Tehsildar and the SDM/Lokpal to forthwith open/unseal the premises and restore possession without delay; respondents free to proceed strictly according to law only after proper notice, clear communication of grounds and full hearing; any future proceedings to be uninfluenced by this order's observations. Writ petition disposed of; no order as to costs. Prayers for disciplinary action and compensation were not specifically answered.

1

Digitally VISHAKHA signed by BEOHAR VISHAKHA BEOHAR

2026:CGHC:21608

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 2351 of 2026

1 - Srinivash Paul S/o Narayan Chandra Paul Aged About 41 Years R/o Maharapara, Orna Bangali Camp Behind Ganesh Mandir, P.O. Adawal, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Collector District Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh.

3 - Naiab Tehsildar Tehsil Tokapal, Distt. Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh.

4 - Thana Incharge Police Station Kodenaar, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

5 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh.

6 - Block Medical Officer Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

For Petitioner :- Mr. Sameer Oraon, Advocate For State :- Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A.

2

SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

08.05.2026

By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality, propriety and validity of the action of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in allegedly entering into the petitioner’s licensed medical shop premises and sealing the same without authority of law, notice or adherence to due process. The petitioner has further sought a direction for de-sealing/unsealing of the premises along with consequential reliefs.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner is a qualified pharmacist having completed the professional course in Pharmacy from Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was granted a valid drug licence under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules framed thereunder for carrying on business of sale and stocking of medicines. Subsequently, the petitioner obtained permission for change of business premises and started operating “Avinash Medical Store” situated at Mawalibhata Main Road, Tokapal, District Bastar.

The grievance of the petitioner is that on 28.04.2026 at about 4:00 PM, respondent Nos. 3 and 4, accompanied by certain officials, forcibly entered the shop premises of the petitioner and conducted

3

search and seizure proceedings without issuing any prior notice, authorization or warrant. It has been alleged that certain documents and articles were seized and thereafter the shop premises was sealed. According to the petitioner, signatures were obtained forcibly on a panchnama without furnishing copy thereof to him and the entire exercise was undertaken without jurisdiction and contrary to the statutory provisions governing inspection of pharmacy establishments.

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking following reliefs:-

“a. A writ and/or an order/direction in the nature of to unsealing/de-sealing of petitioners Avinash Medical Store situated at Kh Np. 554 Mawalibhata Main Road Tokapal Bastar Chhattisgarh and not to interfere with the trade and business of the petitioner.

b. A writ and/or an order in the nature commanding and directing the appropriate authority to take appropriate/disciplinary action against respondent no. 3, respondent no. 4,5, and 6 and further be directed to compensate the petitioner for loss of his livelihood.

c. A writ and/or an order in the nature commanding and directing the appropriate authority to initiate disciplinary action against the respondent no. 3,4,5 and 6. 9

d. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may issue any other writ, and call for the record or

4

pass order direction as it may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

e. Any other relief in the discretion of this Hon'ble Court.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the power to inspect, search or take action against a medical shop is vested with the Drug Inspector and such power cannot be exercised by the Revenue or Police Authorities without authority of law. Due to illegal sealing of the licensed medical shop, the petitioner has been prevented from carrying on his business and livelihood. Learned counsel further submits that even if there was any alleged irregularity, the respondents could not have sealed the shop without following due process of law. No notice or showcause notice was issued to the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing was granted and no order assigning reasons for sealing the premises was supplied to him. Therefore, the action of the respondents is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that without any prior notice, the medical shop of the petitioner has been sealed and because of such illegal action, the petitioner is not in a position to run his business. Learned counsel submits that the concerned Tehsildar/SDM has sealed the shop premises, however, neither any notice was issued to the

5

petitioner nor any reasons were communicated as to why such action was taken. Hence, the impugned action deserves to be quashed.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that he has received instructions from the concerned authorities according to which certain complaints were received against the petitioner alleging that he was running a clinic from the said medical shop premises. On the basis of such complaints, the premises was sealed by the authorities. However, on a specific query made by this Court, learned State counsel fairly submits that till date no notice or show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner regarding the alleged irregularities or the action of sealing the premises.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner’s licensed medical shop has been sealed by respondent No. 3/concerned Tehsildar/SDM on the basis of certain complaints alleging that the petitioner was running a clinic from the said premises. It is, however, an admitted position, as fairly submitted by learned State counsel on instructions, that till date no notice or show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing has been granted to him

6

in respect of the alleged irregularities or the action of sealing the premises. The petitioner has thus been deprived of his right to carry on lawful business without following the due process of law.

This Court is of the considered view that even if any complaint was received against the petitioner, the respondents were duty bound to follow the principles of natural justice and the procedure established by law before taking such drastic action of sealing the licensed premises. Sealing of a business establishment without notice and without recording or communicating reasons cannot be sustained in law, as it directly affects the petitioner’s right to carry on trade and livelihood.

The principles of natural justice, namely nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in his own cause) and audi alteram partem (right to be heard), are well-established in law. Although they are not written in any statute, they are firmly recognised and understood. The Court has to see in each case whether following these principles was necessary to ensure a fair and just decision. If these principles or a legal requirement are not followed, it may itself cause prejudice to a party. In such situations, the affected person is not required to separately prove that actual prejudice was caused due to such non-compliance.

In view of the aforesaid, respondent No. 3/concerned Tehsildar and the SDM/Lokpal is directed to forthwith open/unseal

7

the sealed premises of the petitioner and restore possession of the shop to him without any delay.

However, it is made clear that if the respondents are of the view that any action is required to be taken against the petitioner on the basis of the alleged complaints, they shall be at liberty to proceed strictly in accordance with law, only after issuing proper notice to the petitioner, clearly communicating the grounds, and affording him full opportunity of hearing.

It is further observed that in case any such proceedings are initiated, the same shall be concluded in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made in this order.

Also, if the petitioner remains aggrieved by any future action, he shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy available under law.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of .

No order as to costs.

sd/(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

Judge

Vishakha