Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh v. 1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:38174 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1847 of 2021 • Smt. Rinky Devi Sonawat, W/o Shri Raman Kumar Jain, Aged About 38 Years Proprietor, M/s Megha Medicose, R/o Ground Floor, Plot No. 98/2, Near S B I Bank, Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Controller, Food And Drug Administration, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Collector, Koriya, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4. Deputy Director, Food And Drug Administration, Koriya, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 5. Licensing Authority Cum Assistant Drug Controller, Food And Drug Administration, Koriya, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6. Drug Inspector, Office Of The Deputy Director, Food And Drug Administration, Koriya, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 7. Station House Officer, Police Station Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 WITH --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 3295 of 2020
Legal Reasoning
• Smt. Lata Baghel W/o Dr. Churaman Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Hasda, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The District Magistrate District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 3. The Superintendent Of Police District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 4. Pawan Daharia S/o Shri Fagua Das Daharia Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Hasda, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WITH WPC No. 1856 of 2021 • Manoj Jain S/o Manik Chand Jain Aged About 37 Years Proprietor, M/s Oswal Medical Agency, R/o Ward No. 12, In Front Of New Gurudwara , Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department , Mantralaya , Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 2. Controller Food And Durg Administration , Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Collector Koriya District Koriya Chhattisgarh. 4. Deputy Director Food And Drug Administration , Koriya , District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 5. Licensing Authority Cum Assistant Drug Controller Food And Drug Administration , Koriya , District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 6. Drug Inspector Office Of The Deputy Director , Food And Drug Administration , Koriya , District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 7. Station House Officer Police Station Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WITH WPC No. 1845 of 2021 • Jayant Hirawat, S/o Late Binjraj Hirawat, Aged About 40 Years Proprietor, M/s Jayant Medical Agencies, R/o House No. 2/3, First Floor, Near Sarswati Shishu Mandir, Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Controller, Food And Drug Administration, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Collector, Koriya, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4 4. Deputy Director, Food And Drug Administration, Koriya, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 5. Licensing Authority Cum Assistant Drug Controller, Food And Drug Administration, Koriya, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 6. Drug Inspector, Office Of The Deputy Director, Food And Drug Administration, Koriya, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 7. Station House Officer, Police Station Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WITH WPC No. 1849 of 2021 • Sanjay Jain S/o Sundar Lal Jain Aged About 35 Years Proprietor M/s Sanjay Medicose, R/o P. H. No.27,ward No. 21, N. H. 43, Ambikapur Road, Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Controller Food And Drug Administration, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Collector Koriya, District Koriya Chhattisgarh 4. Deputy Director Food And Drug Administration, Koriya, District Koriya Chhattisgarh 5. Licensing Authority Cum Assistant Drug Controller Food And Drug Administration, Koriya, District Koriya Chhattisgarh 5 6. Drug Inspector Office Of The Deputy Director, Food And Drug Administration, Koriya, District Koriya Chhattisgarh 7. Station House Officer Police Station Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WITH WPC No. 1838 of 2021 • Smt. Sanju Devi Sonawat W/o Vikas Kumar Jain, Aged About 41 Years Proprietor, M/s Kanishka Medicare, R/o Near Sbi Bank, Koriya Manendragarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh Manendragarh, District Tahsil ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Controller, Food And Drug Administration, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Collector, Koriya, District Koriya Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4. Deputy Director, Food And Drug Administration, Koriya, District Koriya Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 5. Licensing Authority Cum Assistant Drug Controller, Food And Drug Administration, Koriya, District Koriya Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 6. Drug Inspector, Office Of The Deputy Director, Food And Drug Administration, Koriya District Koriya Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 7. Station House Officer, Police Station Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) 6 For Petitioners : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 01-08-2025 1) Heard on admission. 2) The above captioned Writ Petitions involve common questions of law and facts therefore they were heard together and are being
Decision
disposed of by this common order. 3) In this batch of petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 26.02.2021 passed by respondent No. 5 (in all petitions), whereby the license granted to the petitioners under Sections 20B and 21B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 have been canceled. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the license granted to the petitioners to sell stock, or exhibit (or offer) for sale, or distribute by wholesale drugs other than those specified in [Schedules C. C(1) and X] by respondent No. 5 have been canceled. He would further submit that a decision was taken by respondent No. 5 contrary to the provisions of Rule 66 of the Drug and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1945”), which provides that without affording the sufficient opportunity of hearing, the license of the like nature cannot be suspended or canceled. He would also submit that no show- 7 cause notice was issued by respondent No. 5 before taking such a decision. 5) Mr. Rao would contend that interim orders were passed in favour of the petitioners and the period of license has already expired. He would further contend that there was an observation by respondent No. 5 to the effect that the petitioners have committed an offence punishable under Sections 420, 466, 467, and 471 of IPC. He would also contend that the petitioners have moved applications for the renewal of their licenses before respondent No. 5 i.e. licensing authority, but those applications have not been considered and decided till date. He would pray for the renewal of their license. He would further state that respondent No. 5 may be directed to review its observations made with regard to the essence of criminality. 6) On the other hand, Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Rao. She would submit that show-cause notices were issued to the petitioners, and thereafter, a decision was taken and the petitioners were not running their medical shops in accordance with the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short “Act, 1940”) and Rules, 1945. She would submit that the period of license has already expired and till date applications for renewal of their licenses have not been moved by the petitioners. 8 7) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 8) Admittedly, licenses were issued in favour of the petitioners under the provisions of the Act, 1940 and Rules, 1945 to sell or distribute wholesale by drugs/medicines. The documents annexed along with the return would show that show-cause notices were not issued to the petitioners before the cancellation of their license and it is in violation of Rule 66 of the Rules, 1945. It is also not in dispute that the period of license has already expired and the petitioners have not moved applications for the renewal of their licenses. In the order impugned, respondent No. 5 observed that the conduct of the petitioners was in contravention of the provisions of Sections 420, 466, 467 and 471 of IPC, but no direction was issued to register any complaint or FIR. 9) Taking into consideration the fact that the period of license has already expired and the applications have not been moved by the petitioners for renewal of their licenses, at this juncture, these petitions are disposed of, and if the petitioners moved application(s) before the respondent No. 5 for renewal of their licenses, the same shall be consider by respondent No. 5 strictly in accordance with the law. 10) The petitioners would be at liberty to make representations with regard to the observation made by respondent No. 5 in the 9 concluding para, wherein an observation has been made that the conduct of the petitioners was in contravention to the provisions of Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. 11) The entire exercise shall be completed by respondent No. 5 within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12) With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.08.04 14:24:32 +0530