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.

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 adjudication in the present case are as follows:-

4.1. Petitioner (M/s. Raj Pharma), a partnership firm, holds a valid license being License No.MZ-1/M2/893 (License No.20-B), MZ-1/M2/887 (License No.21-B) issued under the said Act and the said Rules framed thereunder. It runs a pharmaceutical shop in Mumbai. There is no dispute about the license.

4.2. On 11.07.2014, Respondent No.2 (Assistant Commissioner, (Zone 1) & Licensing Authority) conducted inspection of Petitioner’s premises and found the following violations:

(i) that Petitioner was selling drugs over the counter;

(ii) that Petitioner did not sell drugs to the authorized person;

(iii) that details of drugs provided to Doctors between 01.04.2014 to 30.06.2014 were not made available; and

(iv) that Petitioner did not produce the pricelist of drugs.

4.3. Above violations were notified in inspection report dated 11.07.2014.

4.4. Show cause notice dated 19.07.2014 was issued under Rules 61(1) and 67-H calling for explanation from Petitioner as to why its license should not be suspended/cancelled for the violations.

4.5. On 25.07.2014, Petitioner filed reply to show cause notice and furnished detailed explanation alongwith documents. It was contended that there was no violation of Rules and Petitioner produced the entire details sought for by Respondent No.2.

4.6. On 28.11.2014, Respondent No.2 passed order holding that since Petitioner did not comply with the mandatory Rules in the course of conducting its pharmaceutical business and therefore in exercise of powers under Rule 66(1) license of the Petitioner’s premises stood suspended for a period of 60 days beginning from 29.12.2014 to 26.02.2015.

4.7. Being aggrieved, Petitioner preferred statutory Appeal under Section 66(2) of the Rules before Respondent No.1.

4.8. Initially Respondent No.1 by order dated 23.12.2014 granted interim stay to the impugned order. Hearing was conducted on 26.02.2015 and after hearing Petitioner impugned order dated 12.06.2015 came to be passed directly suspension of Petitioner's license for 60 days to 10 days, inter alia, holding that it was in the interest of the public at large and for the safety of the public.

5. I have heard Mr. Manoj Patil, learned Advocate appearing for Petitioner and Ms. V.S. Nimbalkar, learned AGP appearing for Respondents and with their able assistance perused the record of the case.

6. Mr. Manoj Patil submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable since Petitioner had produced the entire details sought for by Respondent No.2 vide the show cause notice, as also by Respondent No.1 during the hearing of statutory Appeal. He submitted that the order dated 28.11.2014 passed by Respondent No.2 itself records that Petitioner has produced entire details. He submitted that on consideration of the fa