* The Hon'ble Mr Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy + Writ Petition No.17914 of 2008 % Date: 07.07.2011 # M/s.Sri Nagammaleshwara Medical Stores, Gudivada, Krishna District, rep. by its Proprietor K.V.Chalapathi Rao …Petitioner Vs. $ 1.Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Deputy Secretary, Health, Medical & Family Welfare (L2) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others. … Respondents ^ Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri V.Subrahmanyam ! Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Medical Health & Family Welfare < Gist: > Head note: ? Cases referred: 1. AIR 1967 SC 1269 2. AIR 1973 SC 239 3. AIR 1978 SC 597 4. AIR 1981 SC 136 5. AIR 1981 SC 818 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.17914 of 2008 Between: M/s.Sri Nagammaleshwara Medical Stores, Gudivada, Krishna District,rep. by its Proprietor K.V.Chalapathi Rao ..... Petitioner AND 1.Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Deputy Secretary, Health, Medical & Family Welfare (L2) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.Subrahmanyam Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Medical Health & Family Welfare The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. This case is a shining example of how ineptness and insipidity on the part of the bureaucratic apparatus lets an unscrupulous trader in drugs off the hook. The brief facts of the case are as under: During the course of an inspection made by respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 08-01-2001, the petitioner, who is a licensed retail dealer of drugs, was allegedly found selling a drug viz., ‘Rochlone 300 MG’ under an allegedly fake bill. If the version of the respondents is to be believed, even the drug was found spurious. A showcause notice was issued on 19-01-2001 by respondent No.2 to the petitioner wherein it is alleged that the inspection of his shop revealed that he has sold Schedule H drug i.e., 20 tablets of Betnesol, without issuing the sale bill in the absence of qualified person, which is in violation of Rule 65 (2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1940 (for short ‘the Rules’) and that the verification of purchase record, during the inspection, revealed that he purchased one vial of Rhoclone 300 MG, suspected to be spurious drug, from M/s.Lakshmi Venkateswara Medical Agencies, Bhavannarayana Street, Vijayawada-I, at a price of Rs.1400/- and that the said bill is also fictitious. It is alleged that the petitioner, purportedly, sold the said drug to one Smt.Prameela of Gudivada on 27-12-2000, in violation of Rules 65 (4) (1), 65 (4) (3) and 65 (4) (4) of the Rules. The petitioner was, therefore, called upon to submit his explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted its explanation on 02-02-2001. Quite surprisingly, respondent No.2, who purported to have considered the petitioner’s explanation, rejected the same with a cryptic observation that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is found not satisfactory and he has, accordingly, cancelled the drug license of the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order having been dismissed by respondent No.1, the present Writ Petition is filed challenging both these orders. At the hearing, Sri V.Subrahymanyam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted, and in my view rightly, that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have committed serious procedural illegalities in passing the impugned orders. In the first place, respondent No.2, in his order, has not considered the contents of the petitioner’s explanation. Secondly, there is no reference to the purported confirmation by the manufacturer viz., M/s.Bharath Serum & Vaccines Limited, Road No.27, Wagle Estate, Thane, that the drug viz., Rhoclone 300 MG was spurious one. Respondent No.2 has not even recorded his conclusions on the allegations made against the petitioner in the impugned order, leave alone discussing such allegations. Even though the order passed by respondent No.1- appellate authority is somewhat better in referring to the background leading to the issuance of showcause notice and passing of final order by respondent No.2, he has also failed to consider the petitioner’s explanation and assign reasons for rejecting the same. Howsoever serious the allegations might be, the person, who is charged with such allegations, is entitled for a reasonable opportunity of being heard, which has come to be recognized as an integral part of principles of natural justice (see State of Orissa v. Dr.(Miss) Binapani Devi and others[1], Sayeedur Rehman v. State of Bihar[2], Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[3], S.L.Kapoor v. Jagmohan[4] and Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India[5]. The allegations that the petitioner has produced a fake bill from M/s.Lakshmi Venkateswara Medical Agencies, Bhavannarayana Street, Vijayawada-I, and also that the drug itself is spurious, if proved, are very serious, which affect the public at large. The inability of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in dealing with these allegations has immensely benefited the petitioner at the cost of public health. Had respondent Nos.1 and 2 been careful in complying with the procedural requirements by making specific allegations in the showcause notice and supplying to the petitioner material such as the manufacturer’s report on the spurious nature of the drug and recording the reasons for rejecting his explanation, the petitioner would not have had any reprieve. It is lamentable that the casual manner in which respondent Nos.1 and 2 have handled the petitioner’s case has allowed the petitioner to escape, albeit, temporarily. It is time that respondent No.1 is alive to the umpteen number of instances involving sale of spurious drugs, which is costing the people of this nation of their health and wealth and show the sensitivity that is required to tackle the problem of this magnitude. Respondent No.1 is, therefore, directed to take a serious view of the instances concerning sale of spurious drugs by unscrupulous traders and also by the Hospitals of high repute and take appropriate measures to check and prevent such instances to the extent possible. For the above-mentioned reasons and subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. Both the Orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 vide Memo No.12797/L2/2005-4, dated 04-07-2008, and RC.No.693(5)/RO/2001, dated 20-02- 2001, are quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to furnish a copy of the manufacturer’s report on the spurious nature of the drug viz., Rhoclone 300 MG to the petitioner by inviting additional explanation from him. After considering the said explanation, he shall pass a fresh order by issuing detailed reasons, in the event he is not satisfied therewith. He shall complete this exercise within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, WVMP.No.3726 of 2008 and WPMP.No.23325 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 7th July, 2011 Note: LR copy to be marked. (B/o) lur [1] AIR 1967 SC 1269 [2] AIR 1973 SC 239 [3] AIR 1978 SC 597 [4] AIR 1981 SC 136 [5] AIR 1981 SC 818