GARG MEDICAL HALL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is a licensed Pharmacist is before this Court, challenging the order cancelling his licence. This action follows three episodes of surprise checks made at the petitioner's shop. The first inspection was conducted on 05.06.2006, for which, a show cause notice was issued on 17.10.2006; the second inspection on 10.05.2007 in respect of which, show cause notice was issued on 29.01.2008; and the third inspection had made on 02.12.2008, for which, a show cause notice was issued on 08.04.2009. After the first inspection, the show cause notice recorded an observation that the petitioner was unable to produce the purchase bills of several medicines and that the bill books were not correct. In respect of the second inspection which was surprise inspection made on 10.05.2007, the show cause notice sought to elicit how the petitioner was keeping 9 types of narcotic drugs that had been seized at the time of inspection without appropriate purchase bills for the same. The contention by the State was that there had been no reply, though the petitioner contended that a reply had been given on 28.02.2008. This, it is stated by the counsel for the State to be merely a fabrication since there was also a reminder given by the State and there was no response for the reminder for non-issue of reply to the show cause notice. Consequently, a decision had also been taken to suspend the licence for 10 days. On the third occasion on 02.12.2008 when the inspection was undertaken, it was again found that there were 15 habit forming drugs which had been stored at the shop without purchase bills. In the explanation given by the petitioner along with certain documents, the petitioner placed reliance of certain purchases from Navi Medical Agency. The learned counsel for the State would point out that the bills were clear fabrication which would be evident from the fact that Navi Medical Agency had been closed on the date when the bills were said to have been issued in the name of the petitioner-shop. The decision to cancel the licence although might seem harsh, the learned counsel for the State would support the decision by the fact that there were three consecutive occasions when the petitioner was seen to be clearly in breach of the licence conditions and most importantly the petitioner was seen to be stocking narcotic substances without appropriate purchase bills for the same.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there has been a persistent attempt on the part of the officials of the 2nd respondent to harass him and in a case, which was registered soon after the second surprise inspection on 10.05.2007, an FIR No. 66, dated 10.05.2007, had been registered, but when the case was brought before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo, he discharged the petitioner of the charges levied against him under Section 18-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with Section 15 of Indian Medical Council Act of 197 and under Section 420 IPC. The petitioner had also approached this Court earlier for some grievance against the respondents when this Court had passed an order in CWP No. 14431 of 2006 to permit the petitioner to reopen the shop.

(3.) THE order of cancellation of licence is modified to provide for an issuance of licence for storing drugs, other than drugs mentioned in Schedule-H of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act of 1940. The 2nd respondent shall issue suitable orders making such restrictions and setting such conditions as may become necessary and he would also be entitled to secure from the petitioner an undertaking which was made before this Court by the petitioner through his counsel. On receipt of such an undertaking from the petitioner, the 2nd respondent will consider issuance of a fresh licence within two weeks from the receipt of such an undertaking from the petitioner.