RASIKLAL GHOSE AND SONS Vs. INSPECTOR OF DRUGS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by one Manmoth Nath Ghosh, Petitioner of Messrs. Rasiklal Ghose and Sons. The Petitioner is a dealer in medicines in the town of Mangaldai. After the introduction of the Drugs Act of 1940, the Petitioner applied for a licence for sale, stocking and exhibiting for sale of patent medicines in 1951 which was duly granted. In the year 1955 it was renewed for a period of two years from 8th September, 1955 by the Civil Surgeon, Darrang. Before the expiry of two years, on the 19th August, 1957 the Petitioner applied to the Civil Surgeon, Darrang for renewal of the licence for a period of two years on depositing a renewal fees of Rs. 5/ -.

(2.) TWO main points have been urged by the counsel for the Petitioner. Firstly it is contended that the appointment of the Inspector of Drugs as the licensing authority was illegal. Respondent No. 1 therefore had no jurisdiction to refuse to grant licence. Secondly it was contended that the rule, giving power to the licensing authority to refuse, to renew or cancel the licence is ultra vires of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution in as much as it gives a naked and arbitrary power to the authority to grant or refuse to grant a licence. It is also urged that the said rule violates Article 14 as it is discriminatory.

(3.) AS the constitutionality of Rule 59 of the Rules framed under the Drugs Act - - hereinafter called the Rules has been challenged, it is convenient to set out the material provisions of the Act and Rules. Section 18 of the Act provides that from the date as may be fixed by the State Government by notification in the official Gazette, no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf manufacture for sale or sell, or stock or exhibit for sale, or distribute any drug except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence issued for such purpose under this Chapter.