KOLAMBIL HAMZA HAJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was conducting a medical shop by name 'Madeena Medicals' at Kottakkal. On 10.07.2018, an inspection was conducted at the Medical Shop by the Chief Inspector (Drugs Intelligence Squad) and a report submitted to the second respondent noting certain violations of the licence conditions. Based on the report, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P3 show cause notice dated 12.09.2018, pointing out the violations and requiring submission of explanation within 15 days. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 explanation, refuting the findings in the inspection report. A second inspection was conducted jointly by the Chief Inspector (Drugs Intelligence Squad) and the 4th respondent; Drugs Inspector, Malappuram on 13.11.2018, in which also, some violations were found to be subsisting. The petitioner was served with a second show-cause notice dated 29.01.2019, specifying the subsisting violations and seeking his explanation. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 explanation, once again denying the findings of the Inspection Team and alleging mala fides behind the frequent inspections. The explanation having been considered and found to be unsatisfactory, the second respondent, in exercise of the power under Rule 66 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 issued Ext.P6 order, cancelling the petitioner's drug licence. In arriving at the decision to cancel the licence, the second respondent had taken into account the fact that in the years 2014, 2015 and 2017 also, the petitioner's licence had been suspended for alleged violation of the licence conditions.

(2.) Aggrieved by the cancellation of his licence, petitioner preferred an appeal to the Government and followed it up with a writ petition, alleging delay in disposal of the appeal. By Ext.P8 judgment, the appeal was directed to be considered within two months and the stay petition, if filed, within two weeks. In compliance of the direction, the Government considered and rejected the appeal under Ext.P10 order.

(3.) The writ petition is filed challenging cancellation of the petitioner's licence, as affirmed by Ext.P10 order. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that he is entitled for the safeguard provided under Rule 66(1).