IN THE HIQI COURT OF JUDICATIEE AT gwgwASWR (GIHAT‘l‘ISGARI-I) mm PETITION Nggi‘ig OF 2001 Kailash Krishnani S/a L/ShriJagéish Chandra Krish— nani, agea 3O years, Occupation: $913 Proprietor of M/s. Jagdish Medical Agency, 3-21, Nanaani Roaa, Bhilai' District Durg (CA3) ggTIT Io NER VERSUS a¥r V 1. Deputy Directcr, Feaoa 6c Drugs Awinistration, Distt.Durg (C-G) REwONQzsNTs Sub Divisionab Magistrate: Burg (c.G) Naib Tahsiléar, Durg (cxs) Collecmr (L;cence) Dur§ (C-g)/y/ 2. 3. f/V ggTITIoN UNDER ARMCLE ggg/zz’z OF Egg comggrwxom 9g INDIA FoR IssUANCB cm WRII IN THE NATURE OF cmIIORARI _’ géNDAMUs PROHIBITION AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR glRl’fS, DRECTEON OR DIRECTIONS ORDER OR OR3ERS. 4. 'i ‘r *MA;¢2&9izum.m~ : @ i \ haw 9 tugm. nah‘h ' 1.1 $app1iu t&$ , Ram -G.) us r ; p/‘uw’ LthOXi 1g e. S f wat oprm #f ”M & $33 . r a t 3Wm r m m immm é knew“ JwT) m w) XI-HC~22 06. G2 . ZGOZ. Heard Shri Manindra S? ’Dr. N.K‘5hukla, Addl. Adv. éer $hm‘ Kanak Tiwar'i, courise! for 1* The pe-H’rioner has, in fhi of mandamus quashing #he imp: including ail proceedings drnw‘ issuance cf impugned crder' cf c The case of fhe pefiiic gran‘i'ed drug iicance under Cosme‘rics Act1940 and Rules The said iicence has been can‘ceiled Nby *rhe 6% reepono‘en? by his order dafed 19.11.2001. The ider df.19.11.2001, file 6*“ respondenf has nof issued any show cause noi‘ice'fo 'ihe pei‘ifioner, hence The i crder passed by The 6+“ respq namrui jus‘rice. Learned Addifibnai Advoc grievance of This pefi‘i’ioner iss‘rhaiv before passing ”the impugned or ‘5 rivasmva, counsei for fae pefifioner, ierai for The $faTe/ sesponden‘rs and 1e im‘ervener s pefi‘riom way/ed for issuance bf wri‘i’ igned order of cancelim‘ian of iicence a by fhe respondems cuimino‘iing‘in anceiiafion of licence. nerlis ‘iho‘i fhe pe‘i‘i’rioner was duiy The Provisions of The Drugs and mode fhereUnder in ‘H’xe year 1997. ndenf is in vioioi'ion of 'principies of ‘a‘i‘e General appearing wifh Shri [di%éfeii . amm(§afaa§a) mm Wm WWWME‘ém mmw‘afga . aqwwéw Ranbm Smgh 60v? Advoca’re for‘ The S‘mfe submrH‘ed fha'f 6 respondem‘ haé issued no‘hce on 9/13 11 2001 The Impugn order was passed on 19.11.2001 j'he same day. Thus i'} is clear fha‘l’ fhe Th respondenf has passed T‘ impugned order dafed 19.11.2001 i?hou1' issuing prior show caus . nm‘ic'e f0 The pe‘rifioner for cancel! Tion. I “f." ' *h ed d fhe same was dispa‘l’ched-Vo ‘In The fac’rs’and circums‘r ces of ihe case, The impugn order passed by the Sh responden ‘d‘l'. 19.11.2001, which has be passed in vioia‘rio‘n of principles Eof na‘rurai justice cannof b .=us'rained The Impugned order d? 19 11 2001 passed by fhe a *espondem‘ canceilmg fhe iicene:e issued m favour of Th pefi'rioner is quashed. However, The 6+h respondenT is aT iiberTy T ssue fresh show cause noTice To The peTiTioner and ThereafTe L :ass ‘appropriaTe orders in accordar ce wiTh law. The peTiTion sTands disposed of. CerTified copy as per rule. ‘QK/ / i’M/‘ ' \l e QRP U W} Iillw—l/ZOOIe50KmO. n hé e e , en e e o r, s Q M