G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J. – The petitioner has filed the Writ petition for the following reliefs: –

“(i) For direction upon the respondent authorities particularly respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 to unseal the factory premises of the petitioner, which was sealed by them jointly on 09.08.2013 in illegal exercise of powers under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only).

(ii) For quashing the inspection report dated 09.08.2013 prepared by the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 jointly as 'Drug Inspectors' under provisions of the Act.

(iii) To grant such other consequential relief(s) to the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may find the petitioner to be entitled to in equity and/or in law in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The brief facts culled out of the petition are that the petitioner firm is a proprietorship firm having its factory at Salimpur Ahra, Patna and holding a valid license bearing No. 985/92, in Form 25 issued by the respondent/State Drug Controller under the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder for manufacturing and sale of drugs other than those specified in Schedules C, C(1) and X of the Act.

3. It is submitted by the petitioner that in view of the long illness of the wife of the proprietor of the petitioner firm, and also due to financial problems and disconnection of electric supply, the petitioner’s factory was closed since 18.12.2012 and, therefore, all the employees left the job of the petitioner and joined other person / firms.

4. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner's factory premises was inspected by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 on 09.08.2013 at 7 AM when one Ravi Kumar was alone cleaning the premises. The said Ravi Kumar use to clean the factory premises, once a week as the factory was closed. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 enquired with Ravi Kumar, who inturn informed them that the proprietor was out of town and he has opened the premises, only for cleaning purposes and the manufacturing process stalled since six months, inspite of it the impugned inspection report dated 09.08.2013 (Annexure-3) was prepared and the premise was sealed and a copy of inspection report was given to the landlord, namely, Sri Ravindra Kumar Sinha, who subsequently gave the said copy to the petitioner when he returned to Patna. It is further submitted that the petitioner received a notice dated 10.10.2013 issued by the respondent/State Drug Controller on 19.11.2013, to which petitioner replied on 25.11.2013 (Annexure-4) by sending a reply, through speed post on 25.11.2013, clearly states about the aforesaid facts and also requested for unsealing the premises. Subsequently, a reminder dated 09.04.2014 (Annexure 4/A) was also given. It is further submitted that the petitioner has again addressed a letter dated 27.03.2015 and 01.04.2015 to the respondent/State Drug Controller for unsealing the factory premises of the petitioner firm. The petitioner contends that entry, inspection, search and seizure in the petitioner's factory and also of sealing the factory, premises are illegal and without any authority under the law and therefore the impugned inspection report made by respondent Nos. 3 to 5 / Drug Inspectors is liable to be quashed and further the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 may be directed to unseal the factory premises of the petitioner.

5. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the word 'Inspector' has been defined under Section 3(e) of the Act, which prescribes that “inspector” means an inspector appointed by the Central Government or a State Government under Section 21 or under Section 33G of the Act.

For the purpose of convenience Section 3(e) of the Act is extracted: –

3(e) "Inspector" means –

(i) in relation to Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drug, an Inspector appointed by the Central Government or a State Government under section 33G; and

(ii) in relation to any other drug or cosmetic, an Inspector appointed by the Central Government or a State Governm