1 W.P. No.2295/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2295 OF 2010 M/s Globe Trotters Limited, Gut No.218, Survey No.101, Morandi, Chitegaon, Tq. Paithan, District Aurangabad through its authorised signatory, Mr. A.H. Bagwan, Age 51 years, Occ. Service, R/o Chinar Garden, Padegaon, Aurangabad. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Joint Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, Aurangabad 2. The Hon’ble Minister, through the Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32, (Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.G. Ladda, Advocate for the petitioner Shri D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondents No.1 & 2 ..... CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J. DATE : 22nd December, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2 W.P. No.2295/2010 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that, the facts in the present petition and Writ Petition No.5398/2008 are almost identical and the said Writ Petition No.5398/2008 has been disposed of by order dated 27.10.2008. He further submits that, in fact, in the present case, no show cause notice was issued at all and, therefore, the petitioner’s case stands on better footing. The learned A.G.P. confirms the position that the facts in the present petition are almost identical to the facts in Writ Petition No.5398/2008. 3. In view of the above, for the reasons mentioned in order dated 27.10.2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5398/2008, the following order is passed in the present petition: O R D E R 4. The matter is remanded back to the licensing authority for reconsideration. The licensing authority shall extend appropriate opportunity to the petitioner/ Company to tender the reply and on receipt of the reply and after hearing the arguments, the licensing authority shall take appropriate decision in the matter. If at all the licensing authority wants to rely upon any subsequent event, appropriate notice in that regard shall be issued to the Company and after considering the reply that would be tendered by the petitioner/Company, the licensing authority shall take appropriate decision in the matter. It is needless to 3 W.P. No.2295/2010 mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion as regards the merits of the controversy involved in the matter. The petitioner Company thereafter shall tender reply to the show-cause-notice or notice already issued by the licensing authority within three weeks thereafter. The petitioner shall be entitled to inspection of the relevant documents upon which the respondents/ authorities are relying upon for passing any orders. The licensing authority shall thereafter prescribe the matter for hearing within one week and thereafter proceed to render decision in the matter within two weeks thereafter. The impugned order passed on 15.3.2008 and the order passed by the appellate authority on 14.7.2008 as well as the consequential order dated 27.8.2008 shall stand quashed and set aside. 5. Rule accordingly made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs. A. A. SAYED JUDGE