THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23966 of 2009 Date:10.11.2009 Between: M/s. Annapurna Medical Stores. .. Petitioner and The Assistant Director and others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23966 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is a medical stores at Girmajipet, Warangal. A show-cause dated 19.09.2009 was issued by the first respondent alleging that the petitioner committed three violations. Stating that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory, the first respondent issued proceedings dated 23.10.2009 suspending the license of the petitioner in exercise of powers vested under Rule 66 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (‘the Rules for short) until further orders. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health. Three deficiencies and lapses were pointed out by the first respondent in the show-cause notice dated 19.09.2009. The petitioner states that the basis for action against him is a complaint made by a third party as regards the lease of the premises. It is stated that though the petitioner did not submit explanation at all, the impugned order was passed on the assumption that such an explanation was submitted and that it was found not satisfactory. This Court is of the view that there is some communication gap between the parties. Further the scope of the relevant provisions of law also was not properly understood. Rule 66 of the Rules empowers the licensing authority to cancel the license or to suspend it for a specified period. Through the impugned order, the first respondent suspended the license until further orders without specifying the period. The entire matter needs a re-look. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that:- (a) it shall be open to the petitioner to submit its explanation within a period of one week from today; (b) the first respondent shall take the same into account and pass appropriate orders within a period of one week thereafter; (c) if no orders are passed within the stipulated time, the suspension ordered through the impugned proceedings shall lapse and it shall be open to the petitioner to function duly complying with the relevant provisions of law. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 10th November, 2009 Note: Issue CC by tomorrow. (B/o) GHN