GOYAL AND COMPANY Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 21.11.2007 (Annexure P.8) passed by the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, Chandigarh, respondent No. 2, upholding the order dated 13.7.2007 (Annexure P.6) passed by the State Drugs Licensing Authority cum Director Health Services, Punjab, respondent No. 3. A further prayer for restoration of drug licence of the petitioner has also been made.

(2.) IN his order dated 13.7.2007, respondent No. 3, has noticed that Drug Inspectors of Ludhiana and Amritsar namely S/Shri Sanjeev Kumar and Rajesh Suri inspected the premises of the petitioner on 8.5.2007 in the presence of Incharge of the petitioner firm namely Shri Deep Kumar and one independent witness namely Shri Mandeep Dhawan under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act,1940 (for brevity 'the Act'); and Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945 (for brevity 'the Rules'). Accordingly a show cause notice dated 13.6.2007 was issued to the petitioner for explaining the reasons for contravening various provisions of the Act. The reply was found to be unsatisfactory and an after thought. It was concluded that the petitioner-firm has indulged in sale of prohibited drugs. The prohibition has been imposed by the Government of India on the sale of these drugs vide notifications dated 23.7.1983 and 24.8.2001. The samples were tested vide drug sample No. ASR 59 of 2007. A perusal of the order shows that the provisions of Rule 65(5)(3) of the 1945 Rules and Section 26(A) of the Act have been violated. A number of other violations are stated to have been committed resulting in violation of provisions of Section 18(A) of the Act.

(3.) ON further appeal to the Secretary, Health and Family welfare respondent No. 2, the order passed by respondent No. 3 has been upheld by observing that the licence of the petitioner has been rightly cancelled on account of irregularities pointed out in the show cause notices as well as on account of filing unsatisfactory/after thought reply. The appellate authority has further observed that the petitioner has been found guilty of committing serious offences as it had stocks for sale and distribution of spurious, banned and habit forming drugs which are allegedly misused for the purpose of addiction.