Saral Srivastava, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner was issued a licence on 20.01.1994 by respondent no. 2 i.e. the Chief Medical Officer, Basti/Drugs Licence Authority (hereinafter referred as 'Licensing Authority') to sale stock or exhibit or offer for sale or distribute drugs by retail other than those specified in Schedule C and Schedule C (I) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The period of licence was from 20.01.1994 to 31.12.1995.

3. According to the petitioner, he had deposited licence fee for renewal of his licence for different years. The details of deposit has been stated by the petitioner in paragraph 9 of the writ petition which is extracted herein below:-

"That the has already been deposited the renewal fee which is as under:-

(i). Treasury Challan No. 96 Dated 22.12.95 Rs.80/-.

(ii). Treasury Challan No. 88 dated 27.12.1997 Rs.80/-.

(iii). Treasury Challan No. 87 dated 24.12.1999 Rs.80/-.

(iv). Treasury Challan No. 66 dated 28.12.2001 Rs.1,000/- (for 5 years).

(v). Treasury Challan No. 40 dated December, 2006 Rs. 1,000/- till 31.12.2011 the renewal fee deposited.

That the petitioner was continuously depositing the treasury Challan alongwtih required fee for the renewal of his licence, even then respondent no. 2 is not given the copy of renewal to the petitioner, this is why the petitioner was in impression that his renewal has already been extended (because he has already been deposited required fee and till today respondent no. 2 has not issued any information or show cause notice regarding the renewal)".

4. It appears that on the strength of depositing renewal fee, the petitioner was running shop to sell drugs. As according to the petitioner, he had applied for renewal of licence and had deposited requisite fee and, therefore, under the proviso to Rule 63 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (hereinafter referred as Rules, 1945) the licence of the petitioner shall be deemed to continue until orders are passed on the application for renewal filed by the petitioner. It is further pleaded that no order was passed on the application of the petitioner, therefore, the licence of the petitioner was deemed to have been extended.

5. It transpires from the record that respondent no. 2 licensing authority passed an order dated 01.05.2008 cancelling the licence of the petitioner dated 20.01.1994 on the ground that as per the report of the Drug Clerk and Drug Inspector, Basti, petitioner had not applied for renewal of licence before 31.12.1995. The petitioner has challenged the order of the licecing authority dated 01.05.1997 cancelling the licence of the petitioner in the present writ petition.

6. Petitioner has prayed following relief:-

"(a). To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 01.05.2008 passed by respondent no. 2.

(b). To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to renew the licence of petitioner.

(c). To issue any other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(d). To award the cost of the petition to the petitioner".

7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-State contending therein that petitioner was granted licence in Form 20-A and 21-A upto 31.12.1995 by licensing authority. Respondents further pleaded in the counter affidavit that before 24.08.2001, as per proviso to Rule 63 of the Rules, 1945 original licence or renewal of licence to sell drugs shall be valid upto 31st December of the year following the year in which it is granted or renewed. Proviso to Rule 63 further provided that if application for renewal of licence is made before its expiry or if the application is made within six months of its expiry, after payment of additional fee, the licence shall continue to be in force until orders are passed on the application, and that licence shall be deemed to have