THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.25328 of 2025

ORDER:

The petitioners approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the alleged interference of respondent No. 5 (Drug Inspector) in the day-to-day affairs of M/s Vaishnavi Agencies, including the alleged closure of the premises, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The petitioners also sought a direction restraining respondent No.5 from interfering with the business affairs of their firm.

2. Heard Sri D.A. Prem Chand, learned counsel for the petitioners; Smt. Swapna Madhuri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department, for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri Rajender Khanna, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the lawful partners of M/s. Vaishnavi Agencies, a licensed wholesale drug distribution firm operating under a valid drug licence and GST registration, and that they have been conducting business smoothly until disputes arose with respondent No.6, another partner. He submits that respondent No.6 mismanaged the said firm, caused financial irregularities, attempted to forcibly remove staff, and, acting out of malice, instigated respondent No.5 to interfere with the day-to-day operations of the said firm. He submits that respondent No.5, without issuing any notice, without following the procedure prescribed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short “the Act”) and without jurisdiction, visited the subject premises and allegedly closed the said firm, thereby violating petitioners’ fundamental rights under Articles 19, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution. He further submits that this interference is arbitrary, illegal, detrimental to the livelihood of employees, and amounts to the Drugs Inspector stepping into the shoes of a civil court despite the underlying dispute being purely inter- partner and civil in nature. The petitioners, therefore, seek a declaration that the alleged action of respondent No.5 is unlawful and a direction restraining respondent No.5 from interfering with the business of said firm.

4. Respondent No. 5 has filed a detailed counter affidavit categorically stating that no closure order, suspension order, cancellation order, or any coercive order has been issued against the aforesaid firm under the Act. The only action taken was an inspection on 20-08-2025, conducted pursuant to a complaint forwarded by the superior authority. During inspection, the subject premises were found closed, and an inspection report was submitted. Respondent No. 5 never directed the closure of the subject premises nor interfered with the aforesaid firm's day-to-day operations. The matter arising out of the complaint is still under process before the competent authority, and no adverse action has been taken.

5. Respondent No. 6, a partner of the aforesaid firm and the competent person under the drug licence, opposed the writ petition stating that the petitioners themselves were operating the aforesaid firm illegally without his supervision and that he had only submitted a complaint to the authorities regarding these violations.

6. The principal grievance raised by the petitioners is that respondent No.5 closed the subject premises without notice. However, respondent No.5 has categorically denied issuing any such order of closure. The petitioners have not produced any closure notice, suspension order or any official communication from respondent No.5 or the Drugs Control Administration supporting their allegation. Once respondent No. 5 has clearly stated in his counter affidavit that no such order has ever been passed, the very foundation of the writ petition disappears. What remains between the parties are essentially inter se partnership disputes, including allegations of financial mismanagement and rights of supervision, which cannot be adjudicated in