IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13015 of 2006 Sushil Kumar Jaiswal, Son of Late Rambabu Jaiswal, Proprietor, Sam Health Care, Resident of Mohalla-Shivpur, Mahendru, Patna-800006. …..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Joint Food Controller, New Secretariat Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Drug Controller cum Joint Food Controller, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna, Bihar. 4. Food Inspector, Patna. 5. The Hon’ble Chief Minister, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna, Bihar. 6. The Union of India through Director General Health Services. ……Respondents. ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Choudhary Shyam Nandan, Adv. For Central Govt. : Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Adv. Mr. Krishna Chandra Jha, A.C. to S.C.-18 ---------- 14. 23.03.2009 Petitioner wants to manufacture certain alleged food supplements. He made an application for license under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to the State Drug Controller. The State Drug Controller rejected his application on the ground that whether the product was covered under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act or not was a question of subjudice in the High Court and till such time decision is not rendered, he was not in a position to grant any license. Petitioner on such rejection, filed the present writ application, which was taken up for hearing on several occasions along with several other similar writ applications. This Court considering the position of the Central Drug 2 Controller, Director General (Health Services), Govt. of India, who was the expert under both the aforesaid acts referred the matter to the Director General to hear the parties and decide. When the matter was thus referred to the Director General (Health Services), Govt. of India, he asked the petitioner to submit labels with which or under which petitioner would be selling the products. Apparently petitioner did not respond as he had yet to receive a license and the detail composition and description of the product sought to be made by the petitioner had already been furnished under some misconception. Apparently, the Director General (Health Services), Govt. of India holding that the petitioner had not complied with its orders for filing labels did not deem it proper to take a decision in respect of petitioner’s products. It referred other matters to an Expert Committee for taking its view. It gave its finding in other case. It virtually held that the products in dispute were neither drugs nor food. They could be food supplements under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 but the difficulty was substantial provisions thereof appears to be in force. No decision was rendered in the case. No decision was rendered in petitioner’s products. Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the Central Government concedes that the question of having labels or 3 preparing labels for sale of the products would clearly arise once license was granted to the petitioner. Petitioner’s application for license was rejected by the State Drug Controller, as noticed above. It is not in dispute that the description and composition of the products were already available with the Director General, (Health Services), Govt. of India. In my view, on these facts, not being in dispute it would be only fit and proper for the Director General (Health Services), Govt. of India to go through the applications of the petitioner afresh and take a decision in the matter at the earliest, preferably within two months from the date of this order is produced before the Director General (Health Services), Govt. of India. He would take into account the orders passed by him earlier in this regard and also any additional document that the petitioner would file in support of his claim and dispose of the matter on basis of the opinion as rendered. The State Drug Controller would act immediately accordingly. With these observations and direction the writ petition stands disposed of. Vikash/- (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)