IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14546 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- OMANA THOMAS, WIFE OF LATE THOMAS, CHACKO FORMERLY REISDING AT T.C. NO. 5/1939, KARIMPANAMANNIL PNRA B -29, KAWADIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT THAIPARAMBIL MELEDATH HOUSE, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR -20. BY ADV. SRI.P.BHASKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLLER AND LICENCING AUTHORITY, VANCHIYOOR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 035, 2. N.M. SHAJAHAN, SON OF K.NINAR, MOHAMMED, J.S. NIVAS, T.C.5/1377, MUTTAMPARAMBATH, 3. BOBAN LOUIS, SON OF K. LOUIS, RESIDING T.C. NO. 5/1939, KARIMPANAMANNIL,PNRA B -29, KAWADIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. M. ABDUL JALEEL, ADOVDATE AND NOTARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. JILU KUNJUMON, WIFE OF KUNJUMON YOHANNAN, RESIDNG AT T.C. NO 5/1939, KARIMPANAMANNIL, PNRA B -29, KAWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. KUNJUMON YOHANNAN, RESIDING AT T.C. NO. 5/1939, KARIMPANAMANNIL, PNRA B-29, KAWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).14546/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner along with her daughters constituted a partnership firm, called “Sunulu Pharmaceuticals” which obtained a licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for sale of notified drugs, as evidenced by Ext.P1. Ext.P3 shows that one Neelakandan was appointed as competent person, in respect of such “Sunulu Pharmaceuticals”. By Ext.P4, the firm entered into an agreement for sale of “Sunulu Pharmaceuticals” in favour of the second respondent. There is a dispute as to whether sale has been completed or not. But on the strength of Ext.P4, second respondent applied for a licence and such licence was granted under Ext.P5. In Ext.P5 petitioner is shown as the competent person. Petitioner's grievance arises from the fact that she had agreed to act as a competent person, in so far as the operation of Ext.P5 licence is concerned, only for a W.P.(C).14546/2009 2 limited period. The second respondent now continues in the premises where the shop was being conducted earlier. Petitioner contends that this is without her authority. Petitioner has therefore, sought for revocation of licence. Ext.P11 lawyer's notice has been issued in this behalf. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the averments in the writ petition, I am of the view that the licensing authority, the first respondent, shall consider Ext.P11 after notice to the licensee and any other affected person as also the petitioner's authorized representative and take appropriate action thereon, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs