1. This writ petition is directed against a notification bearing No. C.S.R. 779 New Delhi, dated the 18th July, 1980 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition whereby and whereunder the Central Government in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Sections 12, 18 and 33 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter called and referred to as the said Act)framed an amending rule known as Drugs and Cosmetics (2nd Amendment) Rules, 1980 as also the notices as contained in Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ petition.

2. By reason of Annexure-1 the inter alia fees payable in respect of an application for renewal of a licence granted under the provision of the aforementioned Act has been enhanced.

3. By reason of Annexure-2, the State Drugs Controller, Bihar, Patna in his letter addressed to the respondent No. 3 directed that the aforementioned amending rule as contained in Annexure-1 be enforced By copies of the said letter addressed to the Chemists and Druggists Association and all medical stores in the district of Ranchi were instructed to comply with the direction as contained in Annexure-2 as otherwise the licences held by the licencee would be deemed to be cancelled. By reason of Annexure-3 the respondent No. 3 by his letter dt. 10-2-82 addressed to the petitioner informed it that as it had not deposited the renewal fee at the enhanced rate his licence granted under the said Act shall stand cancelled.

4. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass.

5. The said act was enacted to regulate the import manufacture distribution and sales of drugs and cosmetics. By reason of Sec.12 of the Act a rule making power has been conferred upon the Central Government for the purpose of Chapter III, which mainly provides for matter connected with regards to the standard and quality of drugs imported for the use and consumption.

6. Under Sec.18 of the Act, the State Government has been empowered to grant licence for manufacture for sale, or stock or exhibit for sale or distribute in accordance with conditions of licence issued under the rule made thereunder.

7. By reason of Sec.33 of the Act the State Government has been empowered to make rules after consultation with or in the recommendations of, the Board and after previous publication by notification in official gazette for the purpose of giving effect to the provision of Chapter IV of the Act, which inter alia provide for and prescribe the form of licence for the manufacture, for sell, for the distribution of drugs, the conditions upon which such licence may be issued, the authority empowered to issue the licence and the fee payable thereto.

8. In terms of Rule 59 of sub-rule (2) of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and application for grant of licence was to be made in Form 19 or Form 19-a and was required to be accompanied with a fee of Rs. 20/-. If an application for renewal of licence was filed after its expiry but within six months therefrom the fee payable for renewal of such licence was to be Rs. 20.00 and an additional fee at the rate of Rs. 20.00 per month or part thereof.

9. By reason of the impugned amendment as contained in Annexure-1 to the notification the fee of Rs. 20.00 has been enhanced to a sum of Rs. 40.00 and additional fee at the rate of Rs. 30.00 per month.

10. The main ground upon which this application is based is that no service is rendered by the respondents and as such the respondents were not justified in increasing the fee in the manner aforementioned by amending the rule in terms of Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

11. In this case although the amending rule was framed by the respondent No. 1 (Union of India) no counter affidavit has been filed on its behalf justifying the enhancement of the fee.

12. However a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 (who are all employees of the State of Bihar), the affidavit in support whereof has been sworn by one Ram Sewak Verma allegedly an assistant working in the offi