JAYASHREE SAHA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA
LAWS(TRIP)-2017-1-20
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
Decided on January 27,2017

Jayashree Saha Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TRIPURA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

T.VAIPHEI,J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24-7-2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala in Money Suit No. 65 of 2008 dismissing the suit filed by the appellant.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the appeal may be briefly noticed at the outset. The appellant is the Proprietor of S.B. Drug Distributor situated at 71 Hari Ganga Basak Road, Agartala with Drug License No. 8097 of 1987 in Form No. 20-B and another Drug License No. 8098 of 1987 in Form No. 21-B for selling, stocking, exhibiting or distributing the whole sale drugs specified in the said licenses. While carrying on the whole sale drug business as per the licenses, the Deputy Drugs Controller and Licensing Authority (respondent 3 herein) vide his letter Memo No. F.1/AGT-155/DL/92/10382-384 informed the appellant about his proposal to take action against the said two licenses under Rule 66(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act Rules, 1940 ("the Rules" for short) for violation of the conditions of the licenses for stocking and selling Homeopathic medicines and for not maintaining the Inspection Book in Form No. 35. In response to the said letter, the appellant in writing explained in detail his position where after the respondent 3 having been satisfied with his reply allowed him to run his business by renewal his licenses. However, the respondent 3, all of a sudden, by his letter dated 14-5-2007 cancelled the said two licenses for gross violation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ("the Act" for short). It was alleged by the respondent 3 that no reply was received by him in response to his letter Memo No. F.1/AGT-155/DL/92/10382-38. The reply was actually received by respondent 3. In fact, no reminder allegedly sent by him was ever received by the appellant. It was contended by the appellant that he was denied principles of natural justice before taking such action having penal and civil consequences.
(3.) The appellant then preferred an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority, but the same was illegally disposed on 31-7-2007 by holding that he had replied to the show cause. This then prompted him to approach this Court, which by the order dated 6-8-2007 directed the appellate authority to dispose the appeal which was pending since 25-6-2007 by laying down the guidelines for disposal of the appeal. The appeal was ultimately disposed on 31-7-2007 without granting him any relief. This again prompted him to file another writ petition before this Court, which again quashed the order and directed the appellant to file a fresh appeal. By the order dated 28-8-2008, the Commissioner, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Tripura restored his licenses. It is the contention of the appellant that wide publicity was made about the cancellation of his licenses at the instance of the respondent No. 3 for which he suffered loss of reputation, fame and goodwill. As a result of cancellation of his licenses, his business was closed from 14-5-2007 to 29-8-2008 and huge quantity of stocks of medicines kept in his shop got expired which resulted in a loss of Rs.5,00,000/- to him. Even when his business was closed due to cancellation of his licenses, he had to pay house rent of Rs.1,300/- per month without doing any business. He, therefore, claimed a compensation to the order of Rs.50,00,000/- from the respondents. The suit was duly instituted after issuing a notice under Section 80, CPC stating that the cause of action arose on 14-5-2007.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.