WP(C) 6823/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) The petitioner, who has been granted the license by the Deputy D rugs Controller, the licensing authority, under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 194 0 (in short, the Act ) to sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute by reta il drugs other than those specified in Schedules C, C(1) and X of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (in short, the Rules ) and to operate a pharmacy on the p remises situated at PO and District- Dhubri (GTB Road), Ward No.1 in the distric t of Dhubri, Assam by the present petition has prayed for a direction to the res pondents to de-seal the shop premises and to allow him to run the business under the name and style of M/s River Medicos, pursuant to the license granted by the licensing authority in that regard. 2. I have heard Ms. P. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the petiti oner and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 as well as Mr. J. Handique, learned State Coun sel appearing for the respondent No.4. 3. Ms. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner r eferring to the order dated 29th November, 2010 passed by the licensing authorit y has submitted that since pursuant to the show cause notice dated 3rd November, 2010, the license granted to the petitioner was suspended for 2 (two) days with immediate effect, i.e. with effect from the date of passing the order, the prem ises, which was sealed on 27th October, 2010 by the Inspector of Drugs as per th e direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, ought to have been de-sealed, wh ich has not been done despite the various representations made by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner as well as before the licensing authority. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the direction be issued to the responde nts to de-seal the premises and to allow the petitioner to run the business purs uant to the license granted. 4. Though no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed, Mr. Gogoi, lea rned Standing Counsel, Health Department appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5, on the basis of the instruction has submitted that there is no impedime nt on the part of the petitioner in running the business after expiry of the per iod for which the license granted to him was suspended vide order dated 29th Nov ember, 2010. It has also been submitted that since the business premises of the petitioner was sealed as per the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, unless a direction is issued by the Deputy Commissioner to de-seal it, the Inspector of Drugs is not in a position to de-seal the same. According to the learned counse l, the Inspector of Drugs on 4th December, 2010 informed the Deputy Commissioner about the requirement of de-sealing the business premises of the petitioner aft er expiring the period for which the license was suspended. 5. Mr. Handique, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 has submitted that the business premises of the petitioner was sealed sinc e a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by the Joint Director of Health Se rvices, Dhubri on 27th October, 2010 with the Officer-in-Charge of Dhubri Police Station, on the basis of which Dhubri Police Station Case No.597/2010 under Sec tion 420 IPC has been registered. It has also been submitted that in fact the b usiness premises was sealed by the Inspector of Drugs in presence of the Circle Officer and the Executive Magistrate and also the Chief Medical and Health Offic er (CD), Dhubri as per the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri in view of lodging of the aforesaid FIR. 6. It appears that the petitioner has been granted the license, as aforesaid, under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed there-under by t he licensing authority to run the business in the name and style of M/s River Me dicos. While the petitioner was doing the business in terms of the license gran ted, an FIR was lodged by the Joint Director of Health Services on 27th October, 2010 with the Officer-in-Charge of Dhubri Police Station alleging that one Shri F.H. Ahmed is practicing as a Doctor in M/s River Medicos, i.e. the firm belong ing to the petitioner, though he is not qualified to do so. On the basis of the said FIR, Dhubri Police Station Case No.597/2010 under Section 420 IPC was regi stered. The contents of the said FIR reveals that the allegation is basically a gainst said Shri F.H. Ahmed. The Inspector of Drugs, thereafter, in presence of the Circle Officer and Executive Magistrate as well as the Chief Medical and He alth Officer (CD), Dhubri pursuant to the direction issued by the Deputy Commiss ioner, Dhubri, the respondent No.4, sealed the business premises of the petition er on 27th October, 2010. 7. A show cause notice was thereafter, issued by the licensing auth ority to the petitioner asking him to show case as to why necessary action as de emed fit should not be taken for the alleged violation of the provisions of Rule s 64(1) and 65(2) of the Rules. The petitioner on receipt of the said notice da ted 3rd November, 2010 has submitted his reply on 12th November, 2010 denying th e allegation that he is running the business without there being a licensed phar macist. The petitioner, however, in the said reply while admitting that one Shri F.H. Ahmed was practicing as a Doctor in the pharmacy has, however, stated that he was not shown any certificate issued and also he did not know that said Shri Ahmed is not qualified to practice medicine. The licensing authority, upon con sideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner, inflicted the penalty vide order dated 29th November, 2010, in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 6 6(1) of the aforesaid Rules, suspending the license granted to the petitioner fo r a period of 2 (two) days with immediate effect. 8. The petitioner, having accepted such penalty imposed by the lice nsing authority, filed the application before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri on 3rd December, 2010 to de-seal the business premises contending inter alia that the period of suspension as imposed by the licensing authority vide order dated 29th November, 2010 has already been over. Similar representation was also file d before the Inspector of Drugs by the petitioner on the same day, i.e. on 3rd D ecember, 2010. The Inspector of Drugs on 4th December, 2010 also requested the Deputy Commissioner to do the needful, so that the petitioner may continue with the business. The Deputy Commissioner instead of de-sealing the business premise s wrote to the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Assam seeking in struction. Such a course of action infact was not required to be taken by the D eputy Commissioner, who ought to have immediately directed de-sealing of the bus iness premises of the petitioner, in view of the fact that the period for which the license of the petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 29th Nov ember, 2010 passed by the licensing authority, was over. 9. As discussed above, the licensing authority vide order dated 29t h November, 2010 suspended the license issued to the petitioner for a period of 2 (two) days only with immediate effect. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner on receipt of the information, as furnished by the petitioner as well as by the Ins pector of Drugs, ought to have directed de-sealing of the business premises, as the same was sealed as per the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri on 2 7th October, 2010, there being no other order passed by the licensing authority prohibiting the petitioner from doing the business under the license granted to him. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the respondents, more parti cularly the respondent Nos.4 and 5, are directed to de-seal the business premise s of the petitioner forthwith, so that he can run his business pursuant to the l icense granted by the licensing authority under the provisions of the Act and th e Rules framed there-under. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No cost.