IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 16745 of 2009(K) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- V.AJITH KUMAR, PROPRIETOR, M/S.PRIYADERSINI DRUGS AGENCIES, CONVENT ROAD, PRAVACHAMBALAM, NEMAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADS. MR.G.SHRIKUMAR, MR.SREEJITH S.NAIR. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLER AND OFFICE OF ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLLER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DRUGS CONTROLLER, OFFICE OF DRUGS CONTROLLER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. M.A. ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.16745/2009 K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE LICENSE NO.1-43/20B/2003 DTD. 20/01/2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P1(A): COPY OF THE LICENSE NO.1-44/21B/2003 DTD. 20/01/2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL DTD. 18/07/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 6/08/2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE CHELAN ALONG WITH LETTER DTD. 22/10/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 29/10/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DTD. 19/11/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ST RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 30/11/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE GENERAL CONVENER OF THE ALL KERALA PHARMA TRADERS FORUM BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P8: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 29/12/2008 NO.A4 1819/08/ADC OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P9: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DTD. 10/01/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P10: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 20/05/2009 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.16745 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a licensed wholesale distributor of Drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The licences were issued by the 1st respondent, as evidenced by Exts.P1 and P2. The petitioner sought for renewal of the licence and also for shifting the licensed premises. The necessary fee was also remitted. 2. By Ext.P5, the petitioner was directed to show cause why his licences should not be cancelled under Rule 66 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The petitioner submitted Ext.P6 reply. By Ext.P8 order essentially finding that the storage facilities in the existing premises was inadequate, the application for renewal and for shifting was rejected and the W.P.(C).No.16745 of 2009 :: 2 :: petitioner's licence was cancelled. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, the Government. The appeal was rejected by Ext.P10 by the appellate authority. Exts.P8 and P10 have been challenged in this writ petition. 3. This court, at the time of admission of the writ petition, passed the following interim order: “Admit. Issue notice by speed post, returnable within two weeks. In the meanwhile, the 1st respondent shall inspect the premises to which the petitioner proposes to shift the wholesale dealership viz., Pranavam, V/670, Convent Road, Pravachambalam, Nemom P.O., Trivandrum- 695 020 and ascertain the suitability of the said premises for housing the wholesale dealership business carried on by the petitioner as per the licence, Exts.P1 and P2. A report shall be filed after inspection, along with an affidavit of the 3rd respondent on or before 8.7.2009. A copy of this order shall be communicated by the petitioner along with a W.P.(C).No.16745 of 2009 :: 3 :: copy of the writ petition to the 3rd respondent. Post on 10.7.2009.” 4. Pursuant thereto, the Drugs Controller caused an inspection of the premises through the Assistant Drugs Controller, Thiruvananthapuram and after referring to the facilities available in the new premises where the petitioner proposes to shift, it is now affirmed that the premises is suitable for housing the wholesale dealership business”. Paragraphs 3 and 4 read as follows: “3. It is observed by the 1st respondent (Assistant Drugs Controller) during the inspection in the proposed premises that the floor space provided and storage facilities arranged are sufficient for wholesale dealing of drugs as per Rule 64(1) and 64(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The facilities/properties provided are sufficient to preserve the proportion of drugs requiring Cold Storage Facilities W.P.(C).No.16745 of 2009 :: 4 :: also due to the availability of a refrigerator and inverter of adequate capacity. The floor space provided is more than the prescribed area of 10 square meters and the storage volume is more than 3.0 m3. The petitioner is an approved competent person as per the provisions of rule 64(2) of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Hence the premises is suitable for housing the wholesale dealership business proposed by the petitioner. 4. In the circumstances, the 3rd respondent have examined the matter in detail and found that the premises to which the petitioner proposes to shift the wholesale dealership is suitable for housing the wholesale dealership business and the 3rd respondent have complied the order as directed by this Honourable Court.” In these circumstances, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the 1st respondent. Accordingly, Exts.P8 and P10 are set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to pass a W.P.(C).No.16745 of 2009 :: 5 :: fresh order in the light of the statement filed by 3rd respondent and after hearing the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//