S. B. Sinha, J.

1. Both these writ application with consent of the parties were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Short of all unnecessary details the facts of the matter are as follows :-

The petitioner of C W. J. C. No.4788 of 1986 (hereinafter to as referred to as M/s. Medimpex) admittedly had a drug licence duly issued to it in terms of the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Drugs and Cosmetic Rules (hereinafter referred to as act and the rules respectively for the sake of brevity ). Initially the said licence was granted to M/s. Medimpex on or about 8-10-1969 for nine items of drugs. The factory of the petitioner was then situated at Daldali Road The said licence was allegedly granted on the condition that the said factory must be shitted from the said Daldali Road to some other area which is free from pollution.

3 Thereafter a new licence was granted to the petitioner on 14-9-1971 for a premises which is situated at Saidpur which was to remain valid upto 31-12-1972. The aforementioned new licence was also granted for a total number of nine drugs.

4. It may be mentioned here that in terms of the provisions of the said act and the Rules framed thereunder, a licence is required to be obtained for every set of such premises if drugs are manufactured on more than one set of premises. In terms of Rule 72 of the Rules an original or a renewed licence in form 25-A 25-B or Form 25-F) unless sooner suspended or cancelled remains valid up to the 31st December of the year following the year in which it is granted or renewed.

5. In terms of proviso appended to the aforementioned Rule 72, an application for renewal of a licence is to be made before its expiry or within a period of six months of its expiry on payment of additional fees, prescribed therefor In terms of the said provisions a licence continues to be inforce until orders are passed on such an application for renewal and in case no application for renewal is filed within six months within its expiry, the licence would be deemed to have expired.

6. On the expiry of the aforementioned licence which was bearing licence no 135 M/s Medimpex filed an application for renewal thereof and the said licence was renewed from 1-1-1973 to 31-12-1974 for nine drugs only (vide annexure-15) Allegedly on or about 21-5-1975 six additional non-biological drugs including santonin was added. From Annexure 17 to C. W. J. C. No 5943 of 1985, it appears that M/s. Medimpex filed an application for the renewal of the aforementioned licence for the period of 1-1-1975 to 31-12-1976.

7. The petitioner of C. W. J. C. No.5943 of 1985 (hereinafter referred to m/s Naya Dawakhana) has alleged that along with the renewal application, the licensee did not file any application for inclusion of any additional item for inclusion therof in the said licence in terms of Rule 69 (5) of the rules or at all the aforementioned statements made in the writ petition of C. W. J. C No.5943 of 1985 have not been controverted in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents including the respondent No.4 thereof who is petitioner of C. W. J. C. No.4788 of 1986.

8. Although there does not appear to be any statutory order or circular issued in this regard, it appears from the records of the case which were produced before us by the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the state and its officers that such an application for grant of licence or renewal thereof is processed by a high powered committee. The aforementioned application for renewal of the drug licence was placed before the committee on 20-1-1975. It appears that thereafter the Drug controller by a letter dated 26-2-1976 returned only the list of the drugs (and not the renewal application itself) to M/s. Medimpex as allegedly it did not supply the packing conditions in respect of the said drugs. The said letters are contained in Annexure-K and K/1 of the counter-affidavit of the respondent no.4 filed