Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Marion Biotech Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
State Of Up – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Pathak, J.
1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava (Senior Advocate) assisted by Sri Veerendra Singh and Neeja Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Goyal (Senior Advocate), learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri A.K. Goyal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents Nos. 1 to 5 as well as Sri Shashi Prakash Singh (Senior Advocate), Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for respondents No. 6.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 4.10.2023 (Annexure no.16) passed by the Appellate Authority/Special Secretary Food, Safety and Drug Administration, State of U.P. (respondent no.2), whereby review application dated 4.10.2023 moved on behalf of the Assistant Commissioner (Drugs) has been allowed and previous order dated 11.8.2023 passed in Appeal No.1005 of 2023 under Rule 85(3) of The Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (in brevity 'Rules 1945') has been suspended, and the manufacturing company (petitioner) has been directed to produce the certified copies of the orders passed by different courts of Republic of Uzbekistan and submit a compliance report to the Drug Lic
The appellate authority under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act lacks jurisdiction to review its own order without statutory provision, becoming functus officio after a final decision.
The court ruled that the Principal Commissioner's order was invalid due to failure to consider prior findings and the petitioner's submissions, violating principles of natural justice.
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it addresses only material errors apparent on record, not new arguments or hearsay.
Directors are liable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for the conduct of the company's business, and summoning orders require only a prima facie case without extensive procedural scrutiny.
Court notices that there is a failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is salutary duty of High Court to prevent abuse of process or misca....
The doctrine of functus officio limits a quasi-judicial authority's ability to revisit final decisions, ensuring stability and judicial discipline in legal adjudications.
The appellate authority cannot revise its earlier determinations without new grounds, upholding the principle of functus officio in tax matters.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
