Disposed

M/S Primus Pharmaceuticals v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Sept 2026CWP/16356/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order dated 27.03.2026 and a show-cause notice dated 09.05.2024, alleging non-service. The High Court held that since a statutory appeal remedy exists, the petitioner must first exhaust that remedy. The petition was disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner files an appeal within 30 days, it shall be deemed within limitation and decided on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to file statutory appeal within 30 days, which shall be deemed within limitation and decided on merits.

M/S Primus Pharmaceuticals Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.16356 of 2026 Date of Decision: 18.09.2026

¶3

_______________________________________________________________________ M/s Primus Pharmaceuticals ……...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another …....Respondents Coram

¶4

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge

¶5

Whether approved for reporting?

¶6

__________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Agnihotri and Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Singh Jaswal, Additional Advocate General.

¶7

Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral)

¶8

CMP No.24343 of 2026

¶9

For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and

¶10

delay in re-filing the petition after removing the objections is condoned. Application is disposed of.

¶11

CWP No.16356 of 2026

¶12

Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Singh Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2/State.

¶13

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the

¶14

following reliefs:

¶15

“i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing of Order dated 27.03.2026 and summary of order in form DRC-07 dated 27.03.2026 (Annexure P-9).

¶16

-2-

¶17

ii) That the SCN dated 09.05.2024 was never served and therefore adjudication is void.”

¶18

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the prayer clause as also the impugned order, we are of the considered view that as there is a statutory remedy available to the petitioner against the order impugned, it would be in the interest of justice in case the petitioner exhausts the statutory remedies, rather than directly invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

Accordingly, without making any observation on the merits of the issue or the correctness of the order under challenge, we dispose of this petition with the observation that in case the petitioner herein approaches the appellate authority within a period of 30 days from today, then the appeal shall be deemed to be within limitation and it shall be adjudicated on merits in accordance with law.

¶20

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶21

(Ajay Mohan Goel), Judge

¶22

(Yogesh Jaswal), Judge

¶23

September 18, 2026 Rajeev Raturi

M/S Primus Pharmaceuticals v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Primus Pharmaceuticals v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases