S L BANSAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 22 -1 -1986 passed by learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner -appellant, in limine.

(2.) THE petitioner -appellant is a manufacturer of Ayurvedic Drugs and is carrying on business in the name and style of M/s Indian Products, Madhopuria Street, Beawar. District Ajmer. The Drug Controller -cum -Director Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur (herein after referred to as the 'the Drug Controller') granted the petitioner a licence on 2 -4 -1980 for manufacturing certain Ayurvedic Drugs, including Madhu Munnaka Vati and the said licence was renewed, from time to time, and had been renewed till 31 -12 -1985 The Central Government Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi issued permission for use of Indian Hemp (BHANG) in the manufactcre of Munnaka Vati by order dated 23rd April, 1980 (Annexure -4). The above noted drugs have their patents verified by the Drug Controller (vide Annexure 5A and 5B) which shows that Munnaka contains 'VIJAYA' 15% of the total weight. The appellant has also been issued licence for allotment of Indian Hemp (BHANG) for the manufacture of drugs under Rule 83(2) of the the Medical and Toilet Preparations Rules. 1956 and the same is being renewed from year to year. The Drug Centroller issued an order dated 12 -10 -1984 (Annexure 10) cancelling the permission for manufacture of Ayurvedic Drug Munnaka Vati and prohibited its manufacture. The appellant preferred an appeal Under Rule 159(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (here in after refered to as the 'Rules of 1945'), before the Secretary, Medical and Health Rajasthan, Jaipur but the same was dismissed by an order dated 17 -12 -1985(Annexure -14). During the pendency of the appeal, the Drug Controller issued another order dated 31 5 -1985 (Annexure -12) intimating the Excise Commissioner not to deliver Indian Hemp to the appellant for manufacture of Munnaka Vati. The appellant also tiled an appeal a against the said order (Annexure -12) which was also disposed of by an order dated 17 -12 -1985 (Annexure 14). Hence, the appellant filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. Notice to show cause was issued to the respondent but no reply was filed and the writ petition was dismissed in limine vide order dated 22 -1 -1986. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. Notice to show cause was issued and reply to the show cause notice was submitted on 17 -9 -19 -56 and the appeal was admitted after hearing the parties on 16 10 -1986.

(3.) WE have heard arguments on the appeal as a whole and the same is being disposed of by this judgment.