Dismissed

S.Pandian v. the Commissioner

Madras HC28 Jun 2017WP/19517/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought certiorari to quash orders rejecting a renewal of an L3 manufacturing license for Ayurvedic Siddha medicines. The Court found the rejection valid due to violation of license conditions, isolated location risks, and forensic reports indicating alcohol usage exceeding safe limits for personal use preparations, thus dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with the finding that the grounds raised were not sustainable and the impugned orders were not infirm.

S.Pandian Vs the Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 28.06.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.No.19517 of 2003

S.Paulian

... Petitioner

vs 1.The Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Chennai – 600 005. 2.The District Collector, Kanniyakumari District, Kanniyakumari.

¶9

3.The Superintendent of Police, Kanniyakumari District, Kanniyakumari. ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records comprised in proceedings of the first respondent in D.Dis.P&E I (3)/38985/2002 dated 03.07.2003 and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : K.Mahendran, Special Government Pleader

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The writ petitioner is an Ayurvedic Siddha practitioner and was running Dispensary for treating the patients. The writ petitioner through his Ayurvedic Siddha pharmacy manufactured Ayurvedic Siddha Medicines and supplied to the patients and made profits. The L3 license initially issued by the District Collector for manufacturing of Ayurvedic Siddha Medicines by the writ petitioner was in force for quite some time and on expiry the writ petitioner submitted an application for renewal of L3 license. At the time of considering the Renewal Application, the District Collector found that the writ petitioner is utilizing the dispensary for the purpose of trade and therefore, the license already granted cannot be renewed. The Inspection conducted by the competent authority in the place of the wit petitioner also submitted a report stating that the

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

manufacturing area is situated in an isolated place and there is a possibility of mis-utilization of the chemicals and Ayurvedic & Siddha medicines by the writ petitioner.

¶16

2.Due to the doubtful circumstances about the manner and the place in which the preparation of Ayurvedic & Siddha medicine is carried out by the writ petitioner, the District Collector rejected the Renewal Application for grant of L3 license in proceeding dated 09.03.2002. The appeal preferred by the writ petitioner before the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise was also rejected in proceeding dated 03.07.2003. Challenging the said orders, the present writ petition is filed.

¶17

3.The moot question arises in this writ petition is that whether the writ petitioner is entitled for renewal of L3 license for the manufacturing of Ayurvedic & Siddha Medicines. The Inspection Report of the competent authority reveals that the writ petitioner has violated the conditions stipulated in the L3 license and further, the Licensing Authority was not in a position to have control over the goods manufactured. In view of the fact that the factory itself was situated in an isolated place, further, the certificate issued by the Forensic Department report also reveals that the percentage of alcohol in the preparation by the writ petitioner exceeds 2% and the same will affect the health of humans.

¶18

4.In the event of usage of alcohol exceeding 2%, the duty is to be leviable under Item 2(ii) or 2(i) of the Schedule of the Act. Since the Forensic Department report reveals that the usage of alcohol exceeds 2%, in respect of the Ayurvedic & Siddha Medicines prepared by the writ petitioner, such preparations are to be subjected for imposition of duty. This apart, the writ petitioner has prepared the Ayurvedic & Siddha Medicines for trading purpose and therefore, he is not entitled to get renewal of L3 license already granted in his favour. The writ petitioner even in his affidavit is unable to substantiate that he was not preparing the Ayurvedic & Siddha Medicines, for trading.

¶19

5.In the absence of any specific averment that medicines are prepared only for his personal Dispensary usage, the observation made by the District Collector as well as the Appellate Authority is in order and there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed both by the original authority as well as the Appellate Authority. This apart, the writ petitioner has raised a ground that no notice was issued before rejection and the question of issuance of show cause notice will not arise in this case because, it is a Renewal Application submitted by the writ petitioner and therefore, the question of issuance of show cause notice will not arises at all.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

In view of these factors, the grounds raised in the writ petition are not sustainable and there is no infirmity in the impugned orders passed both by the Original Authority dated 09.03.2002 as well as the Appellate Authority dated 03.07.2003. The writ petition is devoid of merits, and Dismissed. However, no order as to cost.

¶22

Sd/Asst.Registrar (CS V )

¶23

/true copy/

¶24

Sub Asst. Registrar
ah/rpa
To
1. The Commissioner,
Prohibition & Excise,
Chennai – 600 005.
2. The District Collector,
Kanniyakumari District,
Kanniyakumari.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Kanniyakumari District,
Kanniyakumari.
+1cc to Government Pleader in sr.no.45331
W.P.No.19517 of 2003
and
W.M.P.24364 & 24365 of 2003
MP(CO)
NR 18/07/2017

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Pandian v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Pandian v. the Commissioner

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

Good Shepherd Nursery and Vs the Secretary, Office of the

Mrs.M.Gracelin Sophiah Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep

V.Selvaraja Vs the District Forest Officer

A. Chinnusamy Vs the Executive Engineer (O&M)

Agha Mohideen Mosque Vs the Corpn.of Chennai

V.Deivyanayagam Vs the Reserve Bank of India