ORDER :

1. By way of filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, prayed that the second stay petition moved by the petitioner may kindly be allowed and during pendency of the writ petition, impugned orders dated 23.09.2024 (Annexure-9), dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure-10) and notice dated 19.03.2024 (Annexure-2) may kindly be ordered to be stayed till final disposal of the writ petition and it is further prayed that the respondents may kindly be ordered to be directed to permit the humble petitioner firm to restart his business with immediate effect.

Any other appropriate interim order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be also passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner - firm was issued a license under the Drug Control Act to conduct business as a retailer as well as a wholesaler, as per the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1940”). It is alleged that the petitioner committed irregularities in maintaining stock and in the supply of drugs under the Rajasthan Government Health Scheme (RGHS), thereby causing fiscal loss to the Government. An FIR No. 265/2023 dated 20.09.2023 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Basni for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, the police arrested the petitioner and seized stock records, bills, computers, and other relevant materials from the premises of the petitioner’s firm. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 — the Drugs Licensing Officer–cum–Assistant Drugs Controller, Jodhpur served the petitioner with a show cause notice dated 19.03.2024 alleging violation of Sections 18(a)(vi) and 18-B of the Act of 1940 and Rules 65(3), 65(4), 65(5), 65(6), and 65(9) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1945”). By the said notice, the petitioner was directed to submit his explanation within seven days.

3. At the time when the show cause notice dated 19.03.2024 was issued, the petitioner was in judicial custody. Therefore, he requested respondent No.3 to grant him additional time to submit his explanation, as he did not have access to the records and documents necessary for preparing a proper reply. The petitioner was subsequently enlarged on bail by this Court on 19.03.2024. Thereafter, respondent No.2, vide communication dated 23.04.2024, directed the petitioner to positively submit his explanation to the show cause notice dated 19.03.2024 within a period of seven days. Upon receipt of the said communication, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice through his advocate on 02.05.2024.

4. Being dissatisfied with the explanation furnished by the petitioner regarding the alleged irregularities, respondent No.3, by order dated 13.06.2024, in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 66(1) of the Rules of 1945, suspended the license issued to the petitioner for the sale, stocking, exhibition, offering for sale, or distribution of retail drugs (other than those specified in Schedule C, C(1), and X of the Rules of 1945) for a period of sixty days, i.e., from 20.06.2024 to 18.08.2024.

4.1 Aggrieved by the order dated 13.06.2024 passed by respondent No.3 suspending the license, the petitioner filed Appeal No.27/2024 before the Appellate Authority–cum–Joint Secretary to the Government, Department of Medical Health. The Appellate Authority, after considering the material placed before it, vide order dated 26.07.2024, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner-firm. However, the period of suspension of the license was modified to operate from 19.08.2024 to 18.09.2024 (both days inclusive).

5. After completion of the suspension period imposed upon the