IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4762 of 2010 Date of decision: 30.8.2011 Sanjeev Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioners : Sh.Mohan Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl.A.G. for Respondents No.1&2. Mr.C.S. Thakur, counsel for R-3. Mr.J.L. Bhardwaj, counsel for R-4. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the grant of the following reliefs: “(a)That the respondents State may kindly be directed to expedite the investigation and also to bring out the report of the Government Analyst of the sample of medicine and to take appropriate action against the respondent No.3 specifically under section 27 of the Drug and Cosmetics Act for manufacturing, selling and distributing the adulterated drugs as defined U/S 17A Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 of the said Act in the interest of law and justice. (b)That the respondent may be further directed to suspend the license of the respondent No.3 for manufacturing, selling and distributing the medicines.” 2. The State Government in its reply has stated that it has taken action and the licence of respondent No.3 Unit was suspended for a period of 10 days. It is not for this Court to go into the question whether the penalty imposed is sufficient or not. I am refraining from saying anything else on the points raised since I have been informed that the petitioner has also filed a petition which is pending before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. 3. In view of the response filed by the State and the fact that the separate proceedings qua compensation and other reliefs are pending before the District Consumer Forum, Solan, I feel that it will not be in the interest of justice to pursue this writ petition any longer. Therefore, the writ petition is 3 disposed of as having become infructuous. It is however made clear that this Court has not expressed any view on the merits of the case and it will be for the Consumer Forum to decide the case on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to approach any other Forum for enhancement of the penalty, if so advised, in accordance with law. No costs. August 30, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge