26 $- * ( IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 362412011 & CM No.7578l2011 (for directions) DINESH KUMAR "... Petitioner Throush: Mr. Anil Kumar Chunduru. Adv. Versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Neha Kapoor, Adv. for Mr' Najmi Waziri, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW ORDER o/o 06.07.2011 1. The petitioner had applied for grant of license to sell retail drugs from Shop No.l, Plot B-838, J.J. Colony Bawana. Delhi. 'Ihe said application of the petitioner was rejected vide Memorandum dated 5'r' May. 2011 on the ground that the premises with respect to which the license is claimed are situated at a plotlflat allotted by DDA for residential use and as per the present Policy under the Drug & Cosmetics Rules,1945, in the premises allotted for the residential use, licence is was not granted. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the matter is squarely covered by the orders in w.P.(c) No.16588/2004. W.P.(C) No.1144812009 and W.P.(C) No. I 5458 l20lr. w.P.(c) -1624/2t)t I a Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified a 3. Notice of the writ petition was issued. 4. The counsel for the respondents states that pursuant to the directions in the aforesaid writ petitions, the applications for grant of license in premises situated on land allotted for residential purpose afe being considered if otherwise found to be covered in the order in W.P.(C) No.165881204. It is stated that the petitioner has not furnished the site plan and proof of payment of conversion charges. It is further contended that if the said documents are submitted, the case of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with the judgment in W.P.(C) No.1658812004. 5. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that such are not the reasons given in the Memorandum dated 5tr' May, 2011 and thus the petitioner cannot be called upon to produce the said documents. It is further contended that no such condition as of payment of conversion charges was imposed in order in W.P.(C) No.16588/2004 and cannot be imposed on the petitioner. 6. The counsel for the respondents rejoins by explaining that the Memorandum was issued in the general form but pursuant to the directions in the other writ petitions aforesaid, the matters are being dealt with in accordance therewith. u,.P.(() 3624/20t I o L 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the petitioner:- (i) to submit the site plan and the proof of payment of conversion charges (if petitioner deems so) to the respondent on or before l2tl'July, 201r. (ii) The petitioner to appear before the licensing authority of the drug controller for personal hearing on l gtr' July. 201 1 at I 500 hours. (iii) The respondents to in terms of the above either grant license to the petitioner or give the reasons if any for not granting the license on or befbre 26tr' July, 2olr. (iv) It shall be open to the petitioner to urge befbre the respondents that conversion charges are not to be paid in accordance with the judgments in the aforesaid writ petitions andlor under the Master Plan-2021. No order as to costs. a--_=----' c----\ \ -'---_) RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J JULY 06,20II bs.. C* Pogc 3 ol 3 w.P.(L) 3624/20t I