IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***

CWP-10932-2026 Date of Decision: 10.04.2026 SANDEEP SINGH MALIK …Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Pradeep Duhan, Advocate and Mr. Anurag Mor, Advocate for petitioner Mr. Deepak Vashisht, DAG, Haryana ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of memo dated 04.11.2025 (Annexure P-4) whereby his shop was sealed under Section

22(2) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940.

2. As per petition, the petitioner is a qualified pharmacist holding valid retail Sale Drug License issued on 14.08.2025. FIR No.308 dated 28.09.2025 under Sections 18A & 18(C) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 (for short “1940 Act”), Sections 3, 4 & 5 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (for short “MTP Act”), Section 34 of National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and Sections 3(5), 318(3) & 88 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) was registered against Suresh Kumar. On the basis of statement of Suresh Kumar, the petitioner was arrested, however, no recovery was effected either from him or his shop. He was released on regular bail on 17.10.2025. The respondent No.4 searched his shop on 04.11.2025 and vide spot memo dated 04.11.2025 sealed his shop though no MTP kit was recovered from his shop. Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with Suresh Kumar was involved in illegal sale and supply of MTP kits. Act of petitioner amounts to violation of provisions of Sections 3, 4 & 5 of MTP Act. The respondent has issued him show cause notice dated 17.12.2025 proposing suspension/cancellation of his license. He has filed reply to aforesaid show cause notice.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 22 of 1940 Act permits search of premises and seizure of records or documents, however, there is no power to seal the premises. The respondent acting beyond its jurisdiction has sealed petitioner’s shop. Act of respondent even otherwise amounts to violation of fundamental right of business and trade guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as well as right of property conferred by Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned State counsel could not point out any part of Section 22 of 1940 Act which empowers authorities to seal the premises though he pointed out Section 22(1)(cc) which empowers authorities to seize any material which may be used as evidence.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. From the perusal of record, it is evident that Police arrested petitioner alleging violation of MTP Act. He was released on bail. The Licensing Authority-respondent has initiated proceeding against him. The respondent searched his shop. Nothing was recovered from his shop still shop was sealed. He has been served show cause notice calling upon to show as to why his licence should not be suspended/cancelled. He has already filed reply to said notice. His shop has been sealed under Section 22 of 1940 Act which reads as:-

“22. Powers of Inspectors.—(1) Subject to the provisions of section 23 and of any rules made by the Central Government in this behalf, an Inspector may, within the local limits of the area for which he is appointed,—

(a) inspect,—

(i) any premises wherein any drug or cosmetic is being manufactured and the means employed for standardising and testing the drug or cosmetic; (ii) any premises wherein any drug or cosmetic is being sold, or stocked or exhibited or offered for sale, or distributed;

(b) take samples of any drug or cosmetic,—

(i) which is being manufactured or being sold or is stocked or exhibited or offered for sale, or is being distributed;

(ii) from any person who is in the course of conveying, delivering or preparing to deliver such drug or cosmetic to a purchaser or a consignee;

(c) at all reasonable times, with such assistance, if any, as he consid