LALIT MEDICOS Vs. STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dt.13.05.2010 (Annx.9) whereby drug licence of the Petitioner, on account of alleged irregularity being committed by him, has been cancelled in exercise of power Under Rule 66(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and the appeal preferred against the order in regard to cancellation of drug licence has also been dismissed vide order dt.03.08.2010 (Annx.10).

(2.) IT appears from the record that on physical inspection of his shop -M/s. Lalit Medicos which is situated at Shop No. 16, S.S.B. Road, Sri Ganganagar various irregularities were pointed out and to be more specific the drug licence of the Petitioner was cancelled on the premise that drugs have been sold without there being any prescription of medical practitioner or issuance of any bill which are considered to be a violation of conditions of licence and notice was initially served upon the Petitioner on 30.04.2010 but despite reminders being sent on 7th and thereafter on 10th May, 2010 since no reply was furnished by the Petitioner, the authority taking note of the material on record and the allegation since remained un -controverted, for the alleged violation of conditions of licence being committed by the Petitioner, of which reference has been made supra, cancelled his licence in exercise of power Under Rule 66(1) of the Rules, 1945 and the appeal preferred by the Petitioner has also been rejected under the order impugned dt.03.08.2010.

(3.) BOTH the submissions made are without substance for the reason that notice was initially served upon the Petitioner as per his own saying on 30.4.2010 and it was expected from him to submit his reply if so desired but when the Petitioner failed to submit his written explanation two reminders were sent on 7th and 10th May, 2010 and both were served upon the Petitioner but despite that neither he sought extension of time for submitting his defence nor appeared for personal hearing, as such taking note of the nature of violation of conditions of licence being committed by the Petitioner and the material which came on record the licensing authority considered it appropriate to cancel his licence in exercise of power Under Rule 66(1) of the Rules, 1945. Apart from it, when the appeal was preferred by the Petitioner, the appellate authority also re -appreciated the finding recorded by the licensing authority and being in concurrence with the finding recorded rejected the appeal preferred. This Court does not find any infirmity in the decision making process being adopted by the Respondent in passing of the order impugned herein and so far as the submission with respect to non -compliance of principles of natural justice is concerned, suffice it to say that notice was served upon the Petitioner on 30.4.2010 and sufficient time was available with the Petitioner to submit his explanation, however he has not taken care of furnishing his explanation being called for, such grievance could not have been raised at a later stage particularly when he has not been able to satisfy as to why the explanation could not be furnished despite notice being served calling for his explanation on 30.4.2010, in the opinion of this Court, the Respondent has complied with principles of natural justice and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing took the decision impugned herein. Taking note of the material on record, this Court does not find substance in the petition.