MST. SALEHA KHATUN BEWA Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directed against an order passed by Shri N.G. Bannerjee, Drugs Controller, Assam, dated 7 -1 -1975 whereby the petitioner's drug licences issued under form Nos. 20 and 21 were cancelled and also against the appellate order dated 21 -7 -1975.

(2.) THE petitioner is a widow. Her husband served the State Government in the capacity of an Assistant Surgeon and died in March, 1963. After the death of the petitioner's husband, it is stated in the petition, the widow applied for drug licences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Rules framed thereunder. On her application, two licences were granted by the Drugs Controller, Assam, the respondent No. 2, the licensing Authority under the State Govt. The first licence being numbered GPR/355 in form No. 20, that is, a licence to sell, stock Or exhibit for sale or distribute drugs by retail other than those specified in Schedules 'C' and 'C1' The petitioner was also granted another licence No. GPR/356 in form No. 21 to sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute drugs by retail as specified in Schedules 'C' and 'C1'. It may be stated here that the petitioner made the application for getting the licences as proprietor of M/s. Pioneer Pharmacy and accordingly the licences were granted in the name of the said Pharmacy. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is an elderly lady and is running the pharmacy for the purpose of maintaining a large family under her. It is stated by the petitioner that she is a "pardanasin lady" and hails from a respectable Muslim family. According to the petitioner, she was running the pharmacy and the business with the help, aid and assistance of a qualified pharmacist and two other employees. According to her, the entire business was looked after and managed by the employees. The case of the petitioner is that she was maintaining and running the business to the best of her abilities. The petitioner received a notice from the Drugs Controller, Assam, the respondent No. 2 whereby she was asked to show cause as to why her drug licences should not be cancelled for violation of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. She was asked to submit her reply within 10 days from the date of issue of the notice. The said notice is marked as Annexure 'C' to her application. The petitioner sent a reply denying the allegations. She stated that she did not know anything about the allegations as contained in Annexure 'C'. The petitioner stated that she was a "pardanasin lady" and that the Pharmacy was run by her servants and employees and that the allegations as contained in Annexure 'C' to the effect that some quantities of alchohol 90% I. P. (500 ml) (rectified spirit) manufactured by M/s. United Colours and Chemicals (P) Ltd. Gauhati were in fact not those of her pharmacy and they were not so purchased by the pharmacy. She also submitted that she was a widow with a large number of dependants and the source of the earning of the pharmacy was the only source of her income and if the licences are cancelled for no fault of hers then along with her, the dependants would have to face great hardships leading to starvation. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter dated 19 -7 -1974 whereby the respondent No. 2, the Drugs Controller, Assam, communicated the following order to the petitioner:

(3.) IT may be stated here, at this stage, that the present Rule came up for hearing on 24 -11 -1975 and on behalf of the petitioner, Shri J.P. Bhattacharjee, Senior Advocate, argued the case and on behalf of the Respondents, the Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam and also Shri J. Sarma appeared. On 24 -11 -1975, a question arose as to whether alcohol 90% I. P. (560 M1) (rectified spirit) which was said to have been stocked or exhibited for sale were drugs specified in Schedules 'C' and 'C1' or not. This was essentially necessary for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the terms and conditions of the licence in respect of Form No. 20 was violated or those of Form No. 21. After hearing the arguments of parties at a considerable length, the hearing of the matter had to be adjourned for ascertainment of the question as to whether the said "rectified spirit" comes within the aforesaid schedules or not, on the prayer of the parties.