M.A. WAHID Vs. COMMISSION AN LICENSING AUTHORITY, INDIAN MEDICINE AND HOMEO DEPTT., HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am not inclined to admit this Writ Petition in which the petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus for a declaration that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned show cause notice dated 8-8-1994. What the petitioner really seeks is a Writ of Prohibition.

(2.) Admittedly, the 1st respondent granted Licence No. 207/4 to the petitioner on 30-11 -1993 for the manufacture of the Unani Drug Mail Ointment (Malam), among others. It is to be in force from 30-11-1993 to 31-12-1994. It was issued in Form-D under Rule 154 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').

(3.) The petitioner was issued notice dated 8-8-1994 to show cause as to why the said licence should not be cancelled as it was obtained by him on misrepresentation of facts. The main ground is that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that earlier his father H. A. Rasheed was holding the licence and that the Unani medicine called, Mail Malam was, in fact, being manufactured by a registered partnership firm in the name and style of M/s. Rasheed and Sons with the petitioners father and his sons as partners and that the said drug had been registered in the name of the father and his sons for the benefit of all sons with the trade mark Pen Brand, etc. After the father of the petitioner died on 24-12-1990. suppressing the said fact, the petitioner applied for licence for the manufacture and sale of the said Unani medicine called 'Mail Malam under the said trade mark Pen Brand'. The other surviving partners of the said firm obviously raised an objection as to the right of the petitioner to manufacture the said drug by himself excluding the others. In view of those circumstances, the 1st respondent issued the impugned notice dated 8-8-1994 to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause within fifteen days. The petitioner states that he already gave his reply, but he has approached this Court as he was advised that the respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the notice.