SAGAR MEDICAL HALL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these writ applications, common question of law and fact arise and as such, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Facts lie in a very narrow compass. Petitioners excepting petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 11557 of 2001 (M/s. Ramji Lal Sagarmal v. State of Bihar and others), filed applications for grant of licence to sell drugs as provided under Rule 59(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 11557 of 2001, however, filed application for renewal of the licence under the said Rule. Applications were filed in the prescribed form before the Regional Licensing Authority, i.e. the authority competent to grant licence. The State Government, by its communication dated 3-4-2001 addressed to all the Regional Licensing Authorities, has informed them not to issue any licence for wholesale and retail sale of the drugs. In pursuance of the aforesaid decision of the State Government Regional Licensing Authority informed the petitioners that in view of the decision of the State Government, prohibiting grant of drug licence, same cannot be issued. As the aforesaid decision of the State Government dated 3-4-2001 has created impediment in the way of the petitioners for grant/renewal of licence, they pray that the same may be quashed and a writ of mandamu be issued to the respondents to consider and grant/renew the licence.

(3.) It is the stand of the petitioners that grant or renewal of licence is governed by the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules made thereunder (hereinafter referred to as the Act and Rules respectively) and the petitioners having applied in terms of the requirements of the Act and Rules, licence cannot be refused or renewal cannot be declined on the ground, that by virtue of policy decision of the State Government, issuance of drug licence has been prohibited. Stand of the respondents. however, is that ban on issuance of wholesale and retail drug licence has been made as a temporary measure and the reason behind that is that there are about 26000 retail drug shops which are adequate to meet the need of the public. Their further stand is that due to mushroom growth of drugs-shops, the turnover of the shops have gone down and many of them are not in a position to meet the establishment cost, which has resulted into sell of spurious drugs which is dangerous and injurious to public health. It is their further stand that in larger public interest, reasonable restriction can be imposed on freedom of trade business and this right is available to the State Government under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.