- (1.) THIS petition has been filed against the order dated 20.02.2013, passed by the Appellate Authority, Jaipur, whereby the petitioner-firm's appeal against the order dated 24.12.2012, passed by the Licencing Authority and Asst. Drug Controller, Jaipur, cancelling the petitioner-firm's licence, has been dismissed.
(2.) MR . Anand Sharma, appearing for the petitioner-firm, has submitted that under Rule 66(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1945') pertaining to cancellation and suspension of licence it has been provided that the licensing authority may, after giving the licensee an opportunity to show cause why such an order should not be passed, cancel or suspend for periods indicated a licence issued to a licensee, if in its opinion, the licensee has failed to comply with any of the conditions of the licence or with any provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules of 1945. Counsel submits that in the instant case, the petitioner-firm's licence has been cancelled on the basis of a purported show cause notice dated 09.11.2012. It is submitted that the said show cause notice was never received by the petitioner-firm. Counsel for the petitioner-firm has pointed to the petitioner-firm's letter dated 21.12.2012, in response to the department's reminder on 18.12.2012 with regard to the non-receipt of the petitioner-firm's reply to the show cause notice dated 09.11.2012 and submits that the Department had been informed by way of speed post that the show cause notice dated 09.11.2012 had not been received by the petitioner-firm. It has been submitted that the petitioner-firm's letter dated 21.12.2012 was sent by speed post and delivered to the Department on 24.12.2012 and yet on 24.12.2012 itself the licence of the petitioner-firm was cancelled. It has been submitted that in the appeal filed under Rule 66(2) of the Rules of 1945 against the order dated 24.12.2012, the petitioner-firm had specifically taken a ground with regard to the non-receipt of the show cause notice dated 09.11.2012. The appellate authority while addressing the petitioner-firm's appeal however sidetracked the issue of non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 66(1) of the Rules of 1945 and did not address the fundamental question of the impugned order dated 24.12.2012 cancelling the petitioner-firm's licence having been passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice statutorily recognized under Rule 66(1) of the Rules of 1945. Mr. S.D. Khaspuria, Addl.G.C, appearing for the respondents, would submits that even though there might not be any proof of service of the show cause notice dated 09.11.2012, yet the fact remains that the petitioner-firm appears to have knowledge of the show cause notice inasmuch as in the appeal filed against the order dated 24.12.2012, the merits of the case set up against the petitioner-firm against the show cause notice dated 09.11.2012 had been detailed. He submits that the present case pertains to a serious contravention of the licence conditions by the petitioner-firm in engaging in the unauthorized sale of spurious drugs, the manufacture of which could not be linked to the alleged manufacturer thereof. It is submitted that in this view of the matter, the petitioner-firm has no case in the petition which is deserving dismissal.
(3.) HEARD and perused the writ petition and annexures thereto as also the appeal filed by the petitioner-firm before the appellate authority and the order dated 20.02.2013 passed thereon.;