1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7981 OF 2004 Maru Medical and Gen.Stores .. Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr..S.C.Halli for petitioners Mr.V.P.Malvankar, A.G.P. for State. CORAM : A.P.SHAH AND S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, JJ. DATE : 1st NOVEMBER 2004. DATE : 1st NOVEMBER 2004. DATE : 1st NOVEMBER 2004. P.C. 1. Heard parties. 2. The petitioner impugns an order dated 24th August 2004 suspending its licence for a period of 30 days from 27th September 2004 till 26th October 2004. 2 3. Petitioner is a partnership firm carryingon business as Medical and General stores. It has been issued a licence under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The said licence is issued some time in 1998. It appears that an officer from the office of respondent No.2 visited petitioner’s- shop. It is the case of petitioner that during this visit, the officer noted some irregularities on the part of petitioner. On the report / recommendation of the Inspector, respondent No.2 issued notice dated 10th April 2002 alleging breach of the terms and conditions of the licence issued by the department in favour of the petitioner. Partner of petitioner were summoned to appear and offer his written/ oral explanation. Petitioner on 22nd April 2002 replied to the notice issued. 4. It appears that respondent No.2 was not satisfied with this explanation and by an order dated 24th May 2002 directed suspension of petitioner’s licence for a period of 30 days from 1st July 2002 to 30th July 2002. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner preferred an appeal before 3 the Minister, Food and Drugs Department, Government of Maharashtra and applied for stay. It appears that this appeal was entertained and stay of the impugned order was granted. Petitioner submits that when the earlier proceedings are pending, there was no occasion for respondent No.2 to once again suspend petitioner’s licence. In other words, the appeal preferred way back in 2002 is still pending but by the order impugned in this petition (Exh.F), once again, petitioner’s licence has been suspended. 5. When this petition was placed before us on 1st October 2004, learned A.G.P. sought time to produce order of the State Government in the pending appeal. The matter was adjourned at his request to 11th October 2004. In the meanwhile, we granted ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (d) of this petition, thereby staying the execution and operation of the order cancelling licence of petitioner. 6. At the request of learned A.G.P. matter was once again adjourned to 25th October 2004. 4 When this matter was placed before us on 1st November 2004, A.G.P. submitted that the Appellate Authority has disposed of the appeal and not only confirmed the suspension of petitioner’s licence but also suspension of several other licensees. He sought to place on record the order passed by the Appellate Authority to this effect. 7. After perusing the order dated 24th August 2004 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority pertaining to earlier appeal, we are satisfied that Authorities in Charge of implementing the Drug control order could not have exercised the powers of suspension of licence of dealers in such casual manner. The order suspending the licence has serious consequences. When appeal is provided against the order suspending the licence then the Appellate Authority is obliged to consider the matter in its entirety. The Appellate Authority is expected to apply its mind and pass reasoned orders in case of each licensee. The appeals cannot be disposed of by common order as is done in the instant case. Petitioner has in this 5 petition made serious grievance about the manner in which its licence was suspended on the earlier occasion and which act is repeated again. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that it violates principles of natural justice. Instead of going into the merits of the controversy, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if we restore petitioner’s appeal to file. We direct that the Appellate Authoity to hear petitioner on the issue of suspension of its licence and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. During the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority and for a period of two weeks after its disposal, the ad-interim order passed in this petition on 1st October 2004 will continue. All contentions on merits of the controversy are expressly kept open. Needless to observe that the appellate authority should pass appropriate orders afresh without in any manner being influenced by its earlier order dated 3rd/5th July 2004. Petition disposed of accordingly. *****