1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5468/2007 M/s. Raghav Medical Store v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 29th August, 2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, for the petitioner. .... The Licensing Authority-cum-Assistant Drug Controller in the office of Drug Controller Officer, Sriganganagar, while exercising powers under Rule 66 (1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1945”), by an order dated 26.4.2007 cancelled licence of the petitioner granted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1940”). An appeal preferred by the petitioner giving challenge to the order dated 26.4.2007 was partly accepted by the appellate authority vide order dated 31.7.2007 by modification of the penalty from cancellation of licence to the suspension of licence for a period of 30 days commencing from 28.8.2007 to to 26.9.2007. Being aggrieved by the same this petition for writ is preferred. The sole contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned is without 2 jurisdiction as in accordance with clause(b) to proviso appended with Rule 66(6) of the Rules of 1945 licence of the petitioner could have not been cancelled. I do not find any merit in the contention so raised. The proviso on which reliance is placed by counsel for the petitioner is reads as follows:- “[Provided that, where such failure or contravention is the consequence of an act or omission on the part of an agent or employee, the licence shall not be cancelled or suspended, if the licensee proves to the satisfaction of the licensing authority; (a)x x x x x (b)that he or his agent or employee had not been guilty of any similar act or omission within twelve months before the date on which the act or omission in question took place, or where his agent or employee had been guilty of any such act or omission, the licensee had not or could not reasonably have had, knowledge of that previous act or omission;” [Underlining made by me]. From perusal of the proviso it is apparent that the licence may not be cancelled or suspended if, any contravention of the conditions of the licence is due to an act or omission on the part of an agent or 3 employee, and if such agent or employee had not been guilty of any similar act or omission within twelve months before the date on which the act or omission in question took place. In the instant matter the act or omission, that resulted into suspension of licence, was not on part of the agent or employee of the petitioner firm but on the partner himself, as such proviso to Rule 66 (1) of the Rules of 1945 is having no applicability in present controversy. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.