APARESH KUMAR SINGH,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Respondent State. Notices dated 2nd June, 2016 (Annexure 7) and 27th January, 2017 (Annexure 11) issued by respondent no. 4, Deputy Director (Drug)cum Regional Licensing Authority, Hazaribagh under Rule 65A of the Drug Cosmetic Rule, 1945 in the matter of renewal of their Drug Licenses being BKS56/96 and BKS 56A/96 both dated 19th September, 1996 asking the petitioners to produce upto date rent receipts or copy of lease agreement in respect of premises in question have been impugned by writ petitioners. Petitioners have explained their defence before respondent no. 4 vide Annexure 8 dated 16th June, 2016 and again vide Annexure 12 dated 3rd February, 2017.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners and respondent no. 5, landlady are parties in Original Suit no. 19/15 in respect of suit property. Rent is being paid after death of the original lessor son, to his mother landlady, but petitioners have not been given any rent receipts. He submits that pendency of Original Suit no. 19/15 and the stand of landlady taken therein, has also been taken note of in the letter dated 8th July, 2016 addressed to respondent no. 5 by respondent no. 4. Thereafter again vide notice at Annexure 11 dated 27th January, 2017 impugned herein, he has been asked to produce upto date rent receipt/lease agreement or any order of stay from the competent court, failing which, the license dated 19th September, 1996 would be cancelled. He further submits that respondent no. 5 is not cooperating in the matter. Therefore, petitioners have been compelled to approach this Court as the subsisting license of the petitioners may be cancelled due to noncooperation of landlady, though the rent has been paid regularly to her and there are no complaints of storage, supply or sale of any prohibited drugs.
(3.) Learned counsel for the State submits that all the background facts mentioned by the petitioners are not only in the cognizance of respondent no. 4 as evident from the enclosed letters including Annexure 9 and the petitioners have also filed their reply on issuance of notice (Annexure 11). The writ petitioners have not shown any lack of jurisdiction or malafide in the issuance of notice by the competent authority, at this stage, to seek interference in the matter. I have considered the submission of the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter when lack of any jurisdiction in the authority issuing the same respondent no. 4 or malafide has not been shown. The respondent no. 4 seems to be aware of all background facts as is reflected from its letter addressed to respondent no. 5 at Annexure 9. It is open for the respondent no. 4 to take a decision in accordance with law. In the background of the facts and circumstances discussed by the parties, no further observation is required to be made at this stage in the matter in the absence of respondent no. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.;