C THARMARAJ Vs. COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN view of the issues involved in these appeals are one and the same, both the appeals are taken up together and a common judgment is delivered by consent of both parties. The case of the appellant is that he had obtained valid licence in Form 25-D issued under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, to manufacture and sell the ayurvedic medicines viz., Kanakasavam, Jeeraka Aristam and Ashoka Aristam. Originally the licence was issued for the period commencing from 31.10.2000 to 31.12.2001 which is subject to periodical renewal. The licence was renewed upto 31.12.2005. He has also made an application for renewal for a further period beyond 31.12.2005 at that time the same was pending. The renewal application was filed on 15.12.2005 i.e. before the date of expiry. Though the application was pending, no final order was passed. According to the appellant, if no order is passed, he is deemed to have the licence and continued to have the licence as per Rule 157 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules.

(2.) AS the police officers in that jurisdiction interfered with the manufacture of the medicines on the ground that the appellant did not have L2 licence for manufacturing ayurvedic medicines, he then applied to the authorities concerned on 10.07.2002 for issue of L2 licence which was ultimately rejected by an order dated 13.02.2003. Challenging the rejection order, the appellant preferred an appeal on 09.04.2003 before the first respondent. It is also admitted that pending the application for L2 licence, the appellant was manufacturing the above said ayurvedic preparations as he had drug licence in Form 25-D of the Act.

(3.) THE second respondent once again rejected the application for L2 licence by order dated 12.10.2004 against which an appeal was preferred on 27.10.2004 and that appeal was also rejected on 20.01.2005. Against which W.P.No.11529 of 2005 was filed in which a miscellaneous petition was filed for an interim direction to remove the seal. Interim direction was issued on 22.06.2005 and the seal was removed on 02.08.2005. Once again the police came to the spot and verified the samples and issued a show-cause notice by the second respondent dated 19.04.2007 for which the appellant has sent a reply and the company was sealed once again on 08.06.2007 and it continued to be sealed from then onwards during the pendency of the appeal and the writ petitions. Therefore, the writ petition in W.P.24879 of 2007 filed for a direction to the second respondent to remove the seal and permit the appellant to manufacture and sell the medicines viz., Kanakasavam, Jeeraka Aristam and Ashoka Aristam. As the said writ petition was dismissed the present appeals have been filed.