APHC010491462025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 25120/2025 Between: 1. KRISHNA MEDICAL AND GENERAL STORES,, D. NO. 2-23/2, DWARAKA TIRUMALA, ELURU DISTRICT REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI M.PANAKALU, S/O. MUSALAIAH, AGE 42 YEARS, R/O. DWARAKA TIRUMALA, ELURU DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MEDICAL AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 2. V, DRUGS CONTROL ADMINISTRATION, SIDDHARTHA MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS,GUNADALA VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 3. THE DIRECTOR, DRUGS CONTROL ADMINISTRATION, SIDDHARTHA MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS,GUNADALA VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DRUGS CONTROL ADMINISTRATION, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT 5. THE DRUGS INSPECTOR, DRUGS CONTROL ADMINISTRATION, JANGAREDDIGUDEM, ELURU DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in proceedings in Rc. No. 11/CAN/ORDER/AD/DCA/ELR-E.COMP No. 290837 dated 09.09.2025 cancelling the petitioner license as bad, illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of Principles of Natural Justice and violative of Article 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the operation impugned of proceedings 11/CAN/ORDER/AD/DCA/ELR-E.COMP No. 290837 dated Rc. No.in 09.09.2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D V SASIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Medical Health and Family Welfare. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent, vide impugned proceedings dated 09.09.2025, has cancelled the license issued in favour of the petitioner, in Form-20 and Form-21, with immediate effect. While passing the said order, it has been observed by the 4th respondent that, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order, the remedy available under Rule 66(A) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (for short, <the Rules=), may be availed. 3 3. Sri D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the provisions of Rule 66(A) of the Rules, deal with the procedure where, in the event of cancellation of license, if the licensee desires to dispose of the drugs, he has in his possession in the premises in respect of which the license has been granted, he shall apply in writing to the licensing authority. Whereas Rule 66 (2) of the Rules, provides for an alternative remedy of appeal against the orders of suspension or cancellation within three months from the date of the order passed under Sub-Rule 1, of Rule 66 under Section 66 (A) (2) of the Rules. 4. Having regard to the same, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the observation made at the end of the impugned order prevents the petitioner from filing the appeal, as provided under Rule 66(2) of the Rules. And the alternative remedy provided to the person under the Rules has become redundant. Thus, they sought to set aside the order. 5. The learned counsel further argues that even as per the inspection, no such drugs were found. The explanation given by the petitioner was made under force, based on the said admission; the present impugned proceedings have been passed. He thus argues that the last line in the impugned order, directing the petitioner to avail a remedy under Rule 66(A) of the Rules, is erroneous. Therefore, he sought to grant liberty to file an appeal before the 1st respondent and sought suspension of the impugned proceedings, pending the disposal of the appeal. 4 6. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that before passing the impugned order, a sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to show cause notice and explanation was called for, thereafter the proceedings were passed. According to the inspection report, the subject drugs were sold without a prescription from a registered medical practitioner. Therefore, submits that since the allegations are serious in nature, the suspension of the impugned proceedings would not be justifiable pending disposal of the appeal. 7. Considered the submissions. 8. The allegations made against the petitioner are that the petitioner has sold the drugs mentioned under Schedule H without the prescription of a registered medical practitioner, in violation of the provisions as provided under Rule 65 (2) and Rule 65 (9) (a) of the Rules. Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court, without going into the merits of the issue, since an alternative remedy is provided in Rule 66 (2) of the Rules, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an appeal before the 1st respondent within a period of two (2) weeks from the receipt of the order. Upon filing of the same, the 1st respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks, thereafter. 9. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:23.09.2025 ANI 6 131 THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No.25120 of 2025 Date:23.09.2025 ANI