ORDER :

This Writ Petition for mandamus is filed to declare the action of respondent No.4 in cancelling the drug licence of the petitioner without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, as illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently, prayed to set aside the impugned order, dated 19.01.2019.

2. The petitioner is M/s.Sri Amrutha Sai Medical and General Stores, represented by its proprietor, doing business in running a medical shop. Licence in Form-20 and 21 bearing No.232, dated 23.01.2013, was granted to the petitioner by the licensing authority to do the said business and the said licence is valid upto 22.01.2023.

3. While the petitioner was doing the said business from the year 2013, as per the aforesaid licence that was granted to the petitioner, earlier on 29.06.2017, the Drug Inspector, Adoni, inspected the business premises of the petitioner and noticed that the petitioner has contravened certain provisions of law mentioned in the inspection report. After following the due process of law, 4th respondent has suspended the drug licence of the petitioner under Rule 66(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (for short, “the Rules”) for a period of 10 days. Again, on 05.09.2017, the Drug Inspector inspected the business premises of the petitioner and found that the petitioner has contravened certain provisions of law mentioned in his inspection report. After following the due process of law, the drug licence of the petitioner was again suspended for a period of six days.

4. Whileso, again, the Drug Inspector and the Additional Director, Prakasam District, jointly inspected the business premises of the petitioner on 07.01.2019 and during the inspection, they found that the petitioner has violated certain provisions of law. The violations are:

(i) the petitioner has failed to submit purchase bills for the drugs shown in Sl.No.9 of the inspection report and thereby violated Rule 65(4)(4) of the Rules;

(ii) that the petitioner has failed to submit purchase and sale particulars of the drugs shown at Sl.No.10 of the inspection report and thereby violated Rules 65(4)(4) and 65(4)(3) of the Rules; and

(iii) that the petitioner has failed to maintain Schedule “H” Register for verification as stated in Sl.No.12 of the inspection report and thereby violated Rule 65(3)(1) of the Rules.

5. After noticing the above said violations and contraventions of relevant provisions of law, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as required under Rule 66(1) of the Rules to show-cause in writing as to why an order cancelling/suspending the drug licence of the petitioner should not be passed. The petitioner has submitted its explanation on 11.01.2019.

6. After considering the said explanation, being not satisfied with the same, the Assistant Director, Drugs Control Administration, District Sales Licensing Authority, Kurnool, has by the impugned order, dated 19.01.2019, cancelled the drug licence issued to the petitioner, in the interest of public health on the ground that the petitioner has been repeatedly indulging in contravening the Rules set out above and as it is found that the petitioner is habituated in contravening the provisions of the relevant Rules of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, “the Act”).

7. Aggrieved thereby, the instant Writ Petition has been filed assailing the legal validity of the impugned order.

8. Heard Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Appadhara Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare, appearing for the respondents.

9. Since the impugned order cancelling the drug licence of the petitioner was passed under Rule 66(1) of the Rules, right of appeal is provided to the petitioner under Rule 66(2) of the Rules, which reads as follows:

“66. Cancellation and suspension of licences.—

(1) ….

(2) A licensee whose licence has been suspended or cancelled may, within three months of the date of order under sub-rule (1), prefer an app