Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 159
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
Meenakshi Ayurvedha Pharmacy, Rep. by its Licensee P. Balamurugan & Others
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Prohibition and Excise VIII Department & Others
W.P. (MD). Nos. 230, 429 & 479 of 2008 & M.P.(MD) No. 2 of 2008
Decided on: 30-01-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:N. Dilipkumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:M. Murugan, Government Advocate.
Compliance with licensing rules and conditions, including Rule 95, is essential for the grant or renewal of drug licences.
Headnote:
Drug Licence - Ayurveda Preparations - Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956 - Rule 95
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, holding Drug Licences for manufacturing Ayurveda Preparations, applied for renewal which was rejected by the authorities. The respondents alleged violations of licence conditions and illegal manufacturing and selling of medicines.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners failed to comply with the licensing rules and conditions, and their appeals were rightly rejected by the authorities.
Issues: Violation of licence conditions, non-compliance with manufacturing requirements, rejection of renewal applications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Rule 95 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956, which outlines the factors for consideration of Licence, including qualifications of technical personnel, equipment, financial position, and suitability of the building for manufacturing.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the petitioners' appeals were rejected. No costs were awarded.
Since common issues are involved in these writ petitions, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
W.P.(MD) No.230 of 2008:
2. The facts of the case:
(i) The petitioner was holding Drug Licence No.955, dated 15.05.2000, issued by the Director of Drugs Control, Chennai, for manufacturing of Ayurveda Preparations of Asavas and Aristas. The said licence was renewed upto 31.12.2003. The petitioner applied for renewal on 18.12.2005 for the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2008 to the third respondent. The third respondent rejected the application, by order dated 01.03.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an appeal to the second respondent, who by order dated 31.08.2004, remanded the matter to the third respondent for fresh consideration.
(ii) After the remand, again the third respondent rejected the said application, by order dated 08.11.2004. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's Pharmacy was sealed on 21.06.2004 for violation of Drug Licence. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was rejected by order, dated 01.07.2005 confirming the order of the third respondent. The petitioner's further appeal to the first respondent was also rejected by order dated 02.04.2007, confirming the same. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. The respondents filed counter affidavit denying the various averments made in the writ petition. According to the respondents, as per the direction of the second respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Nagercoil, inspected the Pharmacy run by the petitioner. During the course of inspection, the public nearby the Pharmacy informed the Assistant Commissioner (Excise) that the petitioner manufactured and sold illicit Arishtom to the consumers. Therefore, the Pharmacy was closed and the request of the petitioner for grant of L2 Licence was rejected by the third respondent District Collector, by his proceedings No.R4/85663/2001, dated 02.07.2002. The petitioner was manufacturing illicit Arishtom, which is illegal and it disqualifies the petitioner from getting Licence under the Rules. The petitioner was manufacturing illicit Madhukashayam and selling the same. Therefore, the Pharmacy was sealed.
W.P.(MD) No.429 of 2008:
4. The facts of the case:
The petitioner is a Hereditary Ayurvedic Physician, practising for the past 30 years. He is a recognised Ayurvedic Physician by the Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine, Madras. He is competent to treat the patients and also issued prescriptions to the patients, so that the patients can buy the drugs. The petitioner obtained L3 Licence No.9/2001/2002 and under the Rules, it was valid upto 31.03.2002. He applied for renewal of the said Licence on 28.02.2002. The third respondent instead of renewing the Licence, issued a show cause notice in Na.Ka.No.37733/2002/Lo-4, dated 24.05.2002, as to why his application for renewal should not be rejected, as he has not commenced any manufacturing work during the Licence period of four months. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 04.06.2002. The third respondent by order, dated 18.06.2002, in Na.Ka.No.4.37733/2002, rejected the application for renewal and also cancelled the L3 Licence. The petitioner filed an appeal to the second respondent on 19.08.2002. The second respondent by his order, dated 27.10.2003, in D.DIS.P & E.I.(3)30613/2002, rejected the petitioner's appeal. Against the said order, the petitioner made an appeal to the first respondent. The first respondent has rejected his appeal, by order dated 17.01.2005, in G.O.(D) No.11, confirming the order of the second respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
5. The respondents filed counter affidavit denying the various averments made in the writ petition and stated that after obtaining L3 Licence in the year 2001, the petitioner did not commence any work during the Licence period upto 31.03.2002. The petitioner's application for renewal was rejected vi
