IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20714 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- A.N.MOHANAKURUP, PROPRIETOR, POONAM MEDICALS, MANNATH LANE, THRISSUR-680 001. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DRUGS CONTROLLER AND LICENSING AUTHORITY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLLER, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.20714 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner, a wholesale distributor of Allopathic Drugs is a dealer licensed in that regard under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules {for short 'the Rules'}. The licence in favour of the petitioner was valid up to 31.12.2007. An application in terms of Rule 63 of the Rules was preferred on 22.12.2007. Before a decision could be taken on the application for renewal of the licence, by Ext.P5 dated 25.12.2007 a notice was issued to the petitioner regarding alleged irregularities and proposing cancellation of the licence. The petitioner submitted Ext.P6 reply and by Ext.P7 dated 8.2.2008 the petitioner's licence was cancelled. This was challenged in appeal Ext.P8 and by Ext.P9, the order passed by the original authority was confirmed. The petitioner, thereupon, approached this court in a writ petition challenging the order cancelling the W.P.(C).No.20714 of 2009 :: 2 :: licence vide W.P.(C)No.16015/08. This court proceeded to consider the contentions and ultimately the writ petition was allowed in part. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment read as follows: “7. In the result, writ petition is allowed in part. Exts.P26 to P29 and P39 are set aside. Drugs controller, the second respondent, is directed to pass fresh orders on Exts.P13 to P16 show cause notices. If necessary he may issue fresh show cause, as an addendum to Exts.P13 to P16. Materials on the basis of which Exts.P13 to P16 have been issued or the addendum show cause notices may be issued, shall, in their entirety, be made available to the petitioners. The petitioners should be granted an effective opportunity of showing cause and after hearing them or their authorized representative, fresh orders shall be passed. The entire process shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 8. By a detailed interim order passed on 17.3.2009, this Court had permitted the first petitioner to continue her business in accordance with the licence W.P.(C).No.20714 of 2009 :: 3 :: which was sought to be cancelled after staying orders Exts.P26 and P39. Said interim order shall continue to operate in favour of the first petitioner till fresh orders are passed by the Drugs Controller in the manner aforementioned. If there is a delay in final orders being passed against the petitioners, and orders are not passed within the time frame mentioned above, then, the suspension of petitioners’ licences shall stand revoked, and licences shall continue to be operative subject to the fresh orders to be passed in that regard by the Drugs Controller. But I make it clear that the petitioners shall not unnecessarily seek time or adjournment of the proceedings and shall only ask for a reasonable opportunity to file objections to the existing show cause notices or additional show cause notices which may be issued.” 2. The matter was again considered by the Drugs Controller, who by Ext.P13, again intimated the petitioner the proposal to cancel the licence under Rule 66 of the Rules. A detailed reply was given by Ext.P14 W.P.(C).No.20714 of 2009 :: 4 :: and by Ext.P15 the Drugs Controller confirmed the proposal and issued an order cancelling the licence. This is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. I heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner Mr.P.Ravindran and learned Senior Government Pleader. 4. Learned Government Pleader points out that Ext.P15 is appealable and in fact the petitioner had earlier filed an appeal. 5. In the circumstances the petitioner could be relegated to the alternative remedy available under the rules. 6. Mr.Ravindran submits that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner must be permitted to operate on the strength of the licence till a decision is taken by the appellate authority. Learned Government Pleader opposes this submission. 7. Rule 53 of the Rules reads as follows: “53. Prohibition of disclosure of information:- Except for the purposes of W.P.(C).No.20714 of 2009 :: 5 :: official business or when required by a Court of law, an Inspector shall not, without the sanction in writing of his official superior, disclose to any person any information acquired by him in the course of his official duties.” 8. It is contended by Mr.Ravindran that the application was not disposed of before the expiry of the licence, in which case, the licence must be deemed to have been pending on the date on which Ext.P7 order cancelling the same was issued and since the order of cancellation was set aside under Ext.P12 judgment, the petitioner may be given the benefit to continue the act on the strength of the licence, until he is a position to approach the appellate authority and seek revocation of Ext.P15. 9. Learned Government Pleader points out that as is evident from Ext.P12 judgment, this court had granted an interim order at the time of admission of W.P.(C)No.16015/08 only in relation to the first petitioner therein and this is evident from paragraph 8 W.P.(C).No.20714 of 2009 :: 6 :: of the judgment, Ext.P12 and it is only the 1st petitioner in the said writ petition, who was permitted to continue in accordance with the licence sought to be cancelled. 10. It is true that Rule 63 provides for continuation of the licence, if an application for renewal is submitted within the time prescribed therein. But, I am not inclined to accept the submission made by Mr.Ravindran. The said deeming provision cannot be applied in the present case, where the licence was cancelled by Ext.P7. 11. No doubt Ext.P7 was cancelled by this court in Ext.P12. Paragraph 8 of Ext.P12 judgment provided for continuation of the licence in favour of the 1st petitioner in the said judgment. In other words, this court had not, in Ext.P12 judgment, permitted the other petitioners in the said writ petition, including the petitioner herein, to continue to operate on the strength of the licence beyond the period of validity of the licence pending fresh orders by the licensing authority. Ext.P12 W.P.(C).No.20714 of 2009 :: 7 :: judgment has become final. The petitioner has also accepted the same. 12. Learned Government Pleader also submits that to the knowledge of the respondents, the petitioner has not conducted business after 8.2.2008. This contention was refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy available against Ext.P15. If the petitioner files an appeal against Ext.P15, the respondents shall, within four weeks thereafter, pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge