Case: M/s. Medimpex (India) Private Limited Vs. Drug Controller-Cum-Chief Licensing Authority &amp; Others

has also held that nothing was pointed out by counsel for the appellant to indicate that the findings of the Drug Controller were perverse or unsustainable. It has further been held by the High Court that the findings of the Drug Controller in his order dated December 22, 1984 that no such licence as claimed by the appellant for manufacture of Santopar was granted in its favour, could not obviously be treated as an order whereby either the licence of the appellant had been cancelled or its renewal had been refused. That being so, the appeal filed by the appellant before the Health Minister against the order of the Drug Controller dated December 22, 1984 was not maintainable inasmuch as Rule 84-A of the Rules which contained the necessary provision for appeal to the State Government contemplated an appeal only against an order of the Licensing Authority refusing to grant or renew a licence. It was held that since right to file an appeal was a creature of statute and no appeal had been provided for against an order such as the order dated December 22, 1984 passed by the Drug Controller in the inquiry held in pursuance of a direction of the High Court that no licence at all had been granted to the appellant to manufacture Santopar tablets, the order passed by the Health Minister was obviously without jurisdiction and consequently the order of the Health Minister dated October 15, 1985 and the subsequent order dated November 11, 1985 were liable to be quashed and as a necessary corollary the writ petition filed by the appellant deserved to be dismissed 7. It has been urged by Shri Sandhya that the order of the Drug Controller dated December 22, 1984 was, on the face of it, erroneous and the High Court committed an error in upholding it. In support of this submission reliance was placed on a document filed as Annexure A to I.A. No. 2 of 1989 made in the special leave petitions purporting to be a true copy of a certificate said to have been issued on January 20, 1984 by Shri Y. K. Sinha to the effect that the certificate or renewal and the list attached thereto as Annexure issued along with letter dated June 10, 1976 relating to the issue of licence for manufacturing of non-biological drugs to the appellant bore his signature and the same were signed June 9, 1976. According to Shri Sandhya in view of this certificate the finding of the Drug Controller that the photostat copy of the renewal certificate and there list attached thereto were forged and fabricated was patently erroneous. Suffice it to say, so far as this submission in concerned, that the said certificate does not appear to have been produced during the course of inquiry before the Drug Controller. The order of the Drug Controller is completely silent about it and nothing has been brought to our notice to indicate that the said certificate was indeed produced before the Drug Controller. So far as the writ petition filed by the appellant which has been decided by the judgment appealed against is concerned, on a specific question being put by us to him Shri Sandhya stated that the said certificate was not produced in the said writ petition. This being the position we are not inclined to take into consideration the said certificate particularly in the absence of any affidavit by Shri Y. K. Sinha vouchsafing the genuineness of the said certificate. On merits we find no justification to interfere with the finding recorded in this behalf by the Drug Controller and affirmed by the High Court, the same being essentially a finding of fact based on material placed before them 8. It was then urged by Shri Sandhya in the alternative that since an application had been made on behalf of the appellant on April 15, 1974 already referred to above containing information that the appellant had decided to manufacture Santopar brand name instead of Santonin and Calomel tablets or any brand name with a prayer that the said product may be considered on the appellants manufacturing item it fulfilled requirement of making an application for endorsement and even if no order was passed thereon it should be deemed that endorsement as prayed for had been granted. We find it difficult to agree with this submission either. The question as to whether as endorsement of making an addition in the licence should or should not be granted apparently requires an application of mind and an order making such endorsement is needed. Even in the case of the appellant the Licensing Authority had passed on order on January 25, 1975 specifically granting the appellants application made for adding six more drugs in its licence, after considering the merits of the application 9. We also do not find any substance in the submission made by Shri Sandhya that the High Court committed an error in holding that no appeal lay to the State Government against the order passed by the Drug Controller on December 22, 1984. The finding by the Drug Controller that no licence had ever been granted to the appellant to manufacture Santopar tablets recorded in the order dated December 22, 1984 passed by him in the inquiry made in compliance with the direction of the High Court could not obviously be treated as an order either refusing to grant licence or to renew it. Since an appeal lay to the State Government only against an order either refusing to grant a licence or to renew it the High Court, in our opinion, cannot be said to have committed any mistake in taking the view that the appeal filed by the appellant against the said order of the Drug Controller dated December 22, 1984 was not maintainable. On the writ petition filed by respondent 2 being allowed by the High Court the reliefs prayed for by the appellant in its writ petition could not obviously be granted

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]9. We also do not find any substance in the submission made by Shri Sandhya that the High Court committed an error in holding that no appeal lay to the State Government against the order passed by the Drug Controller on December 22, 1984. The finding by the Drug Controller that no licence had ever been granted to the appellant to manufacture Santopar tablets recorded in the order dated December 22, 1984 passed by him in the inquiry made in compliance with the direction of the High Court could not obviously be treated as an order either refusing to grant licence or to renew it. Since an appeal lay to the State Government only against an order either refusing to grant a licence or to renew it the High Court, in our opinion, cannot be said to have committed any mistake in taking the view that the appeal filed by the appellant against the said order of the Drug Controller dated December 22, 1984 was not maintainable. On the writ petition filed by respondent 2 being allowed by the High Court the reliefs prayed for by the appellant in its writ petition could not obviously be granted6. It has also held that nothing was pointed out by counsel for the appellant to indicate that the findings of the Drug Controller were perverse or unsustainable. It has further been held by the High Court that the findings of the Drug Controller in his order dated December 22, 1984 that no such licence as claimed by the appellant for manufacture of Santopar was granted in its favour, could not obviously be treated as an order whereby either the licence of the appellant had been cancelled or its renewal had been refused. That being so, the appeal filed by the appellant before the Health Minister against the order of the Drug Controller dated December 22, 1984 was not maintainable inasmuch as RuleA of the Rules which contained the necessary provision for appeal to the State Government contemplated an appeal only against an order of the Licensing Authority refusing to grant or renew a licence. It was held that since right to file an appeal was a creature of statute and no appeal had been provided for against an order such as the order dated December 22, 1984 passed by the Drug Controller in the inquiry held in pursuance of a direction of the High Court that no licence at all had been granted to the appellant to manufacture Santopar tablets, the order passed by the Health Minister was obviously without jurisdiction and consequently the order of the Health Minister dated October 15, 1985 and the subsequent order dated November 11, 1985 were liable to be quashed and as a necessary corollary the writ petition filed by the appellant deserved to be dismissedSuffice it to say, so far as this submission in concerned, that the said certificate does not appear to have been produced during the course of inquiry before the Drug Controller. The order of the Drug Controller is completely silent about it and nothing has been brought to our notice to indicate that the said certificate was indeed produced before the Drug Controller. So far as the writ petition filed by the appellant which has been decided by the judgment appealed against is concerned, on a specific question being put by us to him Shri Sandhya stated that the said certificate was not produced in the said writ petition. This being the position we are not inclined to take into consideration the said certificate particularly in the absence of any affidavit by Shri Y. K. Sinha vouchsafing the genuineness of the said certificate. On merits we find no justification to interfere with the finding recorded in this behalf by the Drug Controller and affirmed by the High Court, the same being essentially a finding of fact based on material placed before themWe find it difficult to agree with this submission either. The question as to whether as endorsement of making an addition in the licence should or should not be granted apparently requires an application of mind and an order making such endorsement is needed. Even in the case of the appellant the Licensing Authority had passed on order on January 25, 1975 specifically granting the appellants application made for adding six more drugs in its licence, after considering the merits of the application9. We also do not find any substance in the submission made by Shri Sandhya that the High Court committed an error in holding that no appeal lay to the State Government against the order passed by the Drug Controller on December 22, 1984. The finding by the Drug Controller that no licence had ever been granted to the appellant to manufacture Santopar tablets recorded in the order dated December 22, 1984 passed by him in the inquiry made in compliance with the direction of the High Court could not obviously be treated as an order either refusing to grant licence or to renew it. Since an appeal lay to the State Government only against an order either refusing to grant a licence or to renew it the High Court, in our opinion, cannot be said to have committed any mistake in taking the view that the appeal filed by the appellant against the said order of the Drug Controller dated December 22, 1984 was not maintainable. On the writ petition filed by respondent 2 being allowed by the High Court the reliefs prayed for by the appellant in its writ petition could not obviously be granted