Ojha J. - (1.) Special leave granted.
(2.) These appeals by special leave have been preferred against the judgment of the Patna High Court dated 17th February, 1989 in C M.J.C. No. 5943 of 1985 and C.W.J.C. No. 4788 of 1986. The appellant was granted a licence in 1969 under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (the Act) and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules (the Rules) to manufacture nine drugs. The said licence was renewed from time to time. On an application being made in this behalf by the appellant six more drugs were included in the licence by order of the Licensing Authority dated 25th January, 1975. One such item was Santonin and Calomel tablets or any brand name. According to the appellant before the order dated 28th January, 1975 was passed by, the Licensing Authority another application was made on 15th April, 1974 by the appellant stating that it had decided to manufacture Santopar brand name instead of Santonin and Calomel tablets and that the said product may be considered as one of the items of manufacture. It, however, appears from the list enclosed to the order dated 25th January, 1975 that the request made in the said application was not granted and the item added was Santonin and Calomel tablets or any brand name as initially applied for. Subsequently, the appellant made an application for the renewal of the licence for the period between 1-1-1975 and 31-12-1976. However, along with this application no application for inclusion of any additional item as contemplated by R. 69(5) of the Rules was made. This fact as is apparent from the judgment appealed against was not disputed by the appellant. In the year 1982 M/s. Naya Dawakhana, respondent No.2 applied for and was granted licence for manufacture of the drug Santopar. This grant of licence to respondent No. 2 was challenged by the appellant before the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2747 of 1983. The said writ petition was opposed by respondent No. 2 and one of the questions arose as to whether the appellant had ever been granted licence to manufacture Santopar on account of which the grant of licence to respondent No. 2 could be held to be illegal. Reliance on behalf of the appellant seems to have been placed on a list attached to a certificate dated 9th June, 1976 containing Santopar tablets also. This certificate, according to the appellant, was issued to it along with a letter dated 10th June, 1976 granting renewal of its licence for the period between 1-1-1975 and 31-12-1976. For the respondent No. 2 it was contended that the said certificate was forged. The High Court took the view that since disputed questions of fact were involved a thorough probe was needed in the matter. On this view the writ petition was disposed of on 2nd August, 1984 by issuing a direction to the Drug Controller to hold an inquiry after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims and to pass final orders in the matter after hearing them. The Drug Controller held an inquiry as directed by the High Court and inter alia found that the photostat copy of the renewal certificate relied on by the appellant did not bear any impression of the signature of the Chief Licensing Authority and that the list of 23 items including Santopar appeared to be fabricated and forged document. In this connection he pointed out that no duplicate copy of the said list was available in the relevant file which was serially numbered. He also held that the appellant had been manufacturing the drug Santopar with effect from 15th April, 1974 without any licence and thereby contravened the provisions of the Act and the Rules. He further held that M/s. Naya Dawakhana, respondent No. 2 was legally manufacturing the drug Santopar under a valid licence dated 11th June, 1982.
(3.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellant filed C.W.J.C. No. 169 of 1985 in the High Court. The said writ petition was, however, by order dated 25th February, 1985 permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to take recourse to any other remedy which may be available to the appellant. Subsequently, an appeal was preferred by the appellant before the Health Minister against the aforesaid order dated 22nd December, 1984. This appeal was allowed on 15th October, 1985 in pursuance whereof the Drug Controller passed an order on 11th November, 1985 whereby respondent No. 2 was informed that its licence to manufacture Santopar stood cancelled. Respondent No. 2 was also directed to stop manufacturing the said drug. C.W..I.C. No. 5943 of 1985 which is one of the writ petitions decided by the judgment appealed against, was filed by M/s. Naya Dawakhana, respondent.No.2 challenging the aforesaid orders dated 15th October, 1985 and 11th November, 1985.;