IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3341 of 2011 along with CWP No. 4666 of 2011. Date of Decision : June 28, 2011 1. CWP No. 3341 of 2011 M/s Pesco Products and anr. versus State of H.P. and others. 2. CWP No. 4666 of 2011 M/s Pesco Products versus State of H.P. and others. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioners: Mr. Sushant Mahapata and Mr. C. N. Singh, Advocates, for the petitioners in both the petitions. For the respondents: Mr. R. K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J. K. Verma, Dy. A.G. for respondents-State. Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate, for respondent No. 4 in both the petitions. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) These writ petitions are filed with the following prayers:- CWP No. 3341 of 2011:- (a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ to the Respondent No. 3 for cancellation of the drug approval/license for manufacture of the cosmetics under the name Kesh Nikhar. 2 (b) The writ of mandamus or appropriate writ to Respondent No. 3 to launch prosecution against the Respondent No. 4 under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. (c) The appropriate writ cancelling or setting aside the order passed by the Respondent No. 2 and direction to the Respondent No. 3 for recalling the spurious cosmetics from the market which have been cleared from the factory by Respondent No. 4 pursuant to the order of respondent No. 2. (d) To set aside the order of the respondent No. 2 imposing the cost of Rs. 25000/- on the Petitioner. CWP No. 4666 of 2011:- (a) The appropriate writ setting aside the order passed by the Respondent No. 2 and direction to the Respondent No. 3 for recalling the spurious cosmetics from the market which have been cleared from the factory by Respondent No. 4 pursuant to the order of Respondent No. 2. (b) To direct the appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 3 to ensure that the Respondent No. 4 is not manufacturing any cosmetics under the brand name KESH NIKHAR till disposal of the present writ after setting aside the order of the Respondent No.2 suspending the order of Respondent No. 3. 2. In the nature of the order we propose to pass in these cases and which in our opinion is the only order required in the circumstances, it is not necessary for us to go into the various disputed questions of fact and law as raised by the parties. The petitioner is respondent in an appeal filed by the private respondent 3 herein which is now pending before the Government. The appeal is filed under Rule 143 (2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. It is the apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority may not advert to the materials produced or the contentions advanced by the petitioner before the appellate authority. We do not find any basis for such an apprehension. While finally disposing of the appeal, the appellate authority shall advert to all the materials placed by the parties and shall also deal with the contentions raised by the parties and that way he shall pass a considered order. We are informed that the appeal is posted for final hearing tomorrow. We direct the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal finally, as above, within a week thereafter. 3. In the former writ petition there is also a challenge to the order passed by the second respondent imposing cost of `25,000/-. Having heard the learned counsel on both the sides and also learned Addl. Advocate General, though it is discretionary power exercised by the statutory authority, yet in the given circumstances we are of the view that imposition of cost is unwarranted. Therefore, order regarding imposition of cost by the second respondent shall stand vacated. 4. We make it clear that we have not adverted to any of the contentions advanced by the parties before us and thus all the contentions available to the parties are left open. 4 5. The writ petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. A duly authenticated copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. June 28, 2011 (PK/C)