Back
MILIND N. JADHAV
Raj Pharma, Through its Partner Shri. Niren M. Shah – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. By the present Writ Petition, Petitioner has challenged legality and validity of order dated 12.06.2015 passed by the Hon’ble Minister of State for Drugs and Cosmetics Department, Maharashtra State in statutory Appeal No.2014/Pro.No.102/Shikana-156(15)/Drugs-2 filed under the provisions of Rule 66(2) read with Rule 67-H(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short “the said Act”) and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (for short “the said Rules”) framed thereunder. By order dated 28.11.2014, Respondent No.2, Licensing Authority directed suspension of license issued under the said Act of Petitioner for a period of 60 days. By the impugned order, Respondent No.1, Appellate Authority reduced the sentence from 60 days to 10 days and directed enforcement of suspension from 25.06.2015 to 04.07.2015. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition challenging the impugned orders.
3. On 24.06.2015, this Court passed ad-interim order of stay of impugned order. Writ Petition was listed for admission on 29.07.2022 when by consent of both parties it was heard finally.
4. Facts which emerge for consideration for adjud
The main legal point established is that authorities must consider the material furnished by a petitioner before passing suspension orders under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the track record and explanations of the accused when imposing penalties under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules, 1945.
The cancellation of a drug licence is invalid if the sampling procedure is not followed as mandated by law, and if the show cause notice lacks clarity regarding allegations.
The licensing authority's power to suspend a licence under Clause 28 can be invoked based on preliminary findings, independent of concurrent legal proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act.
Absence of reasoning as to the mandatory requirement of provision which conferred jurisdiction on the quasi judicial authority or a Court or administrative authority is mandatory. In the absence of r....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
