MOTI AYURVED BHAWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH initially the petitioner filed this writ application for quashing the order dated 16.5.1990 issued by the Commissioner of Excise and the order dated 21.5.1990 issued by the Superintendent of Excise, Chapra, by which the petitioner was restrained from manufacturing Ayurvedic Tonics on the allegation of being used as Alcoholic beverages till the licence is renewed under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as 'MNTP Act '. However, during the pendency of the writ application, an application filed by the petitioner for renewal of the licence under the said provisions has been rejected by order dated 4.4.1991, as contained in Annexure -17 and the said order was brought on record by filing supplementary affidavit and now the grievance of the petitioner is against the said order.

(2.) ADMITTED facts are that the petitioner has been granted licence under the provisions of The Drugs & Cosmetics Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Drugs Act ' and that licence is being renewed from time to time. The petitioner was also granted licence in the year 1987 under Rule 84 of MNTP Act. The licence was being renewed from time to time. In the meantime, Annexures - 10 and 11, as stated above, were issued restraining the petitioner from manufacturing Ayurvedic Tonics till the renewal of the licence. On 31.5.1990 a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why prayer for renewal of the licence be not refused under Rule 87 of the Rules framed under MNTP Act, hereinafter referred to as 'MNTP Rules ' on three grounds, namely, (i) the storage for keeping finished products has not been done in terms of Rules 25, 34 and 131 of MNTP Rules; (ii) the premises for manufacturing the medicines have not been constructed in terms of the map and the same is in violation of Rules 95 and 25 of the MNTP Rules; and (iii) on 8.9.1989 licensee and his associates created hindrance in discharge of duty to the public servant when they had gone for inspection of the premises.

(3.) FROM perusal of Annexure -17 it appears that two grounds have been assigned for refusal to renew the licence. One is for creating hindrance in discharge of duty by the public servant and manufacturing of sub -standard medicines for the purpose of sale in the market.