SAHIL MEDICOS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner held a licence dated 12.2.2009 for retail sale of drugs issued under Rule 61 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (for short "the Rules") issued by the State Drugs Controlling and Licensing Authority, Punjab, Chandigarh which was valid up to 22.1.2014. On the strength of this licence, the petitioner was engaged in retail sale of drugs at his shop at Jalandhar. The licence was cancelled under Rule 66(1) of the Rules vide order dated 19.2.2010 (P-2) by the 4 th respondent, consequent upon inspection of the petitioner's shop on 27.10.2009 by the District Drugs Inspector, Jalandhar under The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The reason cited was that the petitioner was not 'keeping/showing' the purchase records of 9 types of drugs which were seized and placed in Form 16 during inspection. These seized drugs are said to contain one or more ingredients of narcotics drugs and psychotropic substances which are not permitted for stocking under the licence.

(2.) A show-cause notice is alleged to have been issued to the petitioner on 29.12.2009 for contravention of conditions of licence and of Rules 65(3)(1), 65(4)(1), 65(4)(4) & 65(6) of the Rules. Consequently, the licence was cancelled with immediate effect and the petitioner was prohibited from doing further business. Aggrieved by the order of the 4 th respondent, the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority-cum-Managing Director, Punjab Health Systems Corporation. The principal ground of appeal, interalia, was that the show-cause notice dated 29.12.2009 mentioned in the impugned order of cancellation dated 19.2.2010 (P-2) was not served on the appellant, and therefore, he had not been afforded an opportunity of being heard before passing of the adverse order of cancellation of licence. It was also stated that no recovery of any prohibited drug was effected from the shop of the appellant. In order to settle the issue raised, that is, non-receipt of show-cause notice, the appellate authority called for production of record/documentary evidence which could prove that the petitioner was issued a showcause notice. One Mr. Ajay Singla appearing for the Licensing Authority stated before the Appellate Authority that he could not produce any documentary evidence which could prove that the showcause notice was indeed served upon the appellant-firm, M/s Sahil Medicos, but he yet insisted that the show-cause notice was issued to the Firm. The Appellate Authority has recorded in the impugned order dated 30.4.2012 (P-4) while rejecting the appeal as follows:-

(3.) When the licensing authority conceded before the Appellate Authority that there was no proof of service of show cause notice and there could be some laxity in maintenance of record then in absence of concrete proof of service of show-cause notice, the Appellate Authority ought not to have journeyed out to hold that even if the show-cause notice was not served, yet it would not absolve the appellant of the charges levelled against him by the State Drugs Authority and the petitioner-Firm could not have advantage of absolving him from serious offences laid at its door to which he had no answer.