KRISHNADEOPODDAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prayes to quash an order of the Commissioner, Department of Excise, Government of Bihar (Respondents No. 2) as contained in this letter No. 4/MTP 102/88 (Part II) 2370 Patna. dated the 16th May, 1990 addressed to the Collectors end the Deputy Commissioner of all the districts, as contained in Annexnre-5, as also for holding that the Superintendent of Excise, Samastipur (Respondent No. 4) was aot justified in closing and sealing the factory of the petitioner pursuant to the aforementioned ordr (Annexnre-S) specially when the petitioner had submitted fee and forms for renewal of the factory for the years 1989-90 within time,

(2.) The petitioner asserts to this effect. He was granted licence for running factory in the name and style of Madhu Co. at Dalsinghsarai for preparing Ayurvedio and patient medicines by the Excise Commissioner in 1980 and since then he has been doing distillation work. He had also obtained a licence from the Drug Controller. He prepares Ayurvedio medicines like Madhuco's Ras, Madhuco's Anand Ras, Madbuco's Anand Shakti Ras and Anyfee as patient items, and Mritya Sanjivani Ashwarist and Pudina Hare Ark- as Ayurvedic medicines, originally licences were granted under the Drug and Cosmatics Act. Under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparation (Excise Duties) Act and Rules a licence has also to be granted by the Excise Commissioner, Under Rule 84 of the Rules prepared under the aforementioned Act the petitioner deposited fee and forms in the Government Treasury on 14-3-1990 vide Chalan Nos. 1, 2 and 3 dated 10-3-1990 (as contained in Annexure-1) and submitted the application dated 14-3-1990 (Annexure-2) along with cbalans and relevant form (Annexure-1/A) in the office of the Superintendent of Excise (Respondent No 4) for renewal of lioance for the years 1990-91. Under Rules 82 and 83 after deposit within time of the fees and forms the licence is deemed to have been renewed and licensee empowered to run his factory after depositing the requisite duty. However, the respondents stopped the distillation work. Under Rule 87 revocation and suspension of the licensee can be made after giving opportunity to the licensee against whom any proposed action is to be taken The Government has also issued a circular in this regard, as contained in the letter of the Assistant Commissioner of Excise dated 3rd December, .986 -as contained in Annexure-3) The Superintendent of Excise on 21-5-1990 in view of the order of the Commissioner (as contained in Annexure-5), locked and sealed the factory of the petitioner though raw materials including the Ayurvedic Jari Butt were put in the pit and wes in the process for fermentation, without giving any prior notice and affording any opportunity. If the factory is not opened soon in that event the raw materials will be spoiled and the petitioner will be put to a great loss. 5,000 kg. Gur and drugs worth Rs. 1,000/- are lying in the factory of the petitioner and he is having recurring loss of Rs. 2,000/- per day. That apart, 80 technical and n: n-technioal staff, vaidya and other workers including some daily wages workers would become idle. After deposit of the fee and forms within the scheduled time it was the duty of the Department to renew the licence of the petitioner but the department took long time to renew the licence.

(3.) In their counter affidavit, the respondents assert to this effect. The prayer is not maintainable is Annexure-S is a general order relating to renewal of licences relating to Medicine and Toilst Preparation Act for the year 1990-91 which was not meant to put complete ban on the working of the licensed premises as it is to stop only those Ayurvedio Preparations which are capable of being misused as ordinajy alohoholio beverages. The Commissioner has asked the Collectors to send proposals for renewal of licences according to law giving instructions to send draft of show cause notice for such licensees against whom irregularity has been detected in course of inspection. The Commissioner being the authority is competent to issue such instructions which cannot be challenged. There is no mala fide intention of the authority to cause any injury to the petitioner. The direction ofr the Superintendent of Excise (Annexure-4) is also not challengable as heothas Jurisdiction to stop manufacture of certain Avurvedic preparations for the reasons aforesaid till the pendency of renewal matter. Renewal cannot be claimed ai a matter of right by the licesees when a number of irregularities have been detected against them. Explanations furnished by the petitioner has been disposed of. Cases of M/s, Sri Moti Ayurved Bhawan and M/s. Uma Chemical Industries cannot be compared with that of the petitioner on the same footing inasmuch as the petitioner was asied to show cause in regard to the irregularity which has been detected against him and after receiving his explanations it was found that his licence is not fit for renewal. The Collector, Samastipur after enquiry has also intimated vide his letter (at contained in Annexure-S2) that his licence is not fit to be renewed. The petitioner has got no Drug licence after 31-12-1993. which is evident from the letter (as contained in Annexure-S3) dated 18-4 1990 of the Drug Controller of Bihar, which ii an essential condition under Rule 94. He does not possess valid licence since 1987 to 1988. The petitioner has not moved the State Government in appeal. The petitioner has not been adversely affected as some stricted Ayurvedic medicines were not allowed to be manufactured during the pendency of the renewal of the licence. The show cause notice issued to the petitioner shows that he has violated a number of terms and conditions of the licence as well as the Medicine and Toilet Preparation Rules. Grant of licence does not mean that it has to be renewed from year to year as a matter of course and the authorities competent to call for any information relevant to the licences can refuse renewal on valid grounds. The licensees who have not violated any terms and conditions have been allowed renewal whereas those against whom irregularities have been detected or who have been violating the terms and conditions of the Rules have not been favoured with renewal during the pendency of their show cause. The petitioner has no fundamental right to deal with articles containing alohohol which is capable of being misused as ordinary alohoholic beverages. The order of the Excise Commissioner is not Violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has not been stopped from operating from manufacturing other medicinal preparations.