1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9540/2008 (M/s Purohit Charitable Laboratory Sansthan Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of order : 11.12.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Rajesh Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr. Manmeet Rai, for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the communication Annexure-9 whereby a restriction has been imposed by the respondent upon the petitioner – Sansthan for running the blood Bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court towards Rule 122-O of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 submitted that the said communication Annexure-9 dated 14.11.2008, restraining the petitioner from running the blood-bank is contrary to the said provision, therefore, the communication Annexure-9 may be quashed and the petitioner may be permitted to run the blood-bank as per the terms and conditions of the license. 2 This writ petition was listed in the Court on 26.11.2008. On that day, learned Additional Advocate General was directed to accept notice on behalf of the respondents and time was granted to file reply. Today, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that on 24.11.2008 a notice has been issued to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner may file reply to the said notice. Upon filing reply, the matter may be decided by the respondents in accordance with law. I have perused Rule 122-O of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which is as follows : “122-O. Cancellation and suspension of licences (1) The Licensing Authority or Central Licence Approving Authority may for such licences granted or renewed by him after giving the licensee an opportunity to show cause by such an order should not be passed by an order in writing stating the reason thereof, cancel a licence issued under this part or suspend it for such period as he thinks fit, either wholly or in respect of some of the substance to which it relates, or direct the licensee to stop collection, storage, processing, manufacture and distribution of the said substances and thereupon order the 3 destruction of substances and stocks thereof in the presence of an Inspector if in his opinion, the licensee has failed to comply with any of the conditions of the licence or with any provision of the Act or Rules thereunder. (2) A licensee whose licence has been suspended or cancelled may, within three months of the date of the order under sub-rule (1) prefer an appeal against that order to the State Government or Central Government, which shall decide the same.” Bare perusal of the above provision, it is clear that without providing opportunity of hearing, no order for restraining the lab can be passed by the respondents but apparently, the order impugned has been passed in violation of Rule 122-O of the Rules, therefore, it is not sustainable in the eye of law. However, as per information given by learned counsel for the respondents, a show cause notice dated 24.11.2008 has been issued by the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is directed to file reply to the notice issued to him by the respondents within a period of one week from today. Upon filing the reply, the matter may be decided by the respondents after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of fifteen days from the date of filing reply in accordance with Rule 122-O of the 4 Rules of 1945. It is made clear that till decision of the matter, the effect and operation of order Annexure-9 dated 14.11.2008 shall remain stayed. Further, it is also required to be observed that the petitioner shall not violate any terms and conditions of the license for the purpose of running blood-bank. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun