IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18368 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER --------------- DR.N.J. GEORGE, PROPRIETOR, M/S.B.B. BHAVAN PHARMACEUTICALS, P.O. ORUMANAYOOR, PIN-680 512, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.N.J.JOHNSON RESPONDENTS ------------------ 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (LICENSING AUTHORITY UNDER MEDICINAL & TOILET PREPARATIONS ACT 1955) 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, VATANAPPALLY. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 18368 OF 2008 J ==================== Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P8, by which the request of the petitioner for enhancing the sanctioned medicinal preparation has been allowed limiting the same to 25% of what was requested for. The main reason for limiting such enhancement to 25% was that the petitioner had not produced any proof to substantiate his arguments. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order is illegal. In Ext.P9, an application made by the petitioner seeking review of Ext.P8, the petitioner has indicated the names of their clients whom they are supplying medicines and also the increase in the demand for the medicines manufactured by the petitioner to justify the enhancement sought for by him. 3. On facts, what I notice is that in the absence of any proof, the 1st respondent cannot be faulted for the view it has taken in Ext.P8. This is for the reason that apart from making the averments before the 1st respondent, petitioner had not produced any proof to substantiate his WPC 18368/08 :2 : request. Since the decision in Ext.P8 is entirely for the reason that the petitioner had not produced proof of his claims, I am satisfied that the petitioner should be given another opportunity to supply adequate materials before the 1st respondent so that the 1st respondent can have a re-examination of the claim made by the petitioner. 4. In order to enable the 1st respondent to reconsider to reconsider the matter, I direct that it will be open to the petitioner to make an application to the 1st respondent supported by proof to substantiate his claims for enhancement in the production capacity of existing medicines. It is directed that if such an application is filed by the petitioner within 4 weeks from today, that will be considered by the 1st respondent on merits with notice to the petitioner and orders thereon will be passed. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp