1 2025:CGHC:42346 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1822 of 2021 1 - Prateek Kumar Bothra S/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Bothra Aged About 26 Years Proprietor M/s Suman Medicose, R/o Ward No.12, Second Floor, In Front Of Gurudwaram, Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Controller Food And Drug Administration, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Koriya, District Koriya Chhattisgarh 4 - Deputy Director Food And Drug Administration, Koriya, District Koriya Chhattisgarh 5 - Licensing Authority Cum Assistant Drug Controller Food And Drug Administration, Koriya, District Koriya Chhattisgarh 6 - Drug Inspector Office Of The Deputy Director, Food And Drug Administration, Koriya, District Koriya Chhattisgarh 7 - Station House Officer Police Station Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 For Petitioner : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 21-08-2025 1) Heard on admission. 2) In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.02.2021 passed by respondent No. 5, whereby the license granted to the petitioner under Sections 20B and 21B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 has been canceled. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the license granted to the petitioner to sell stock, or exhibit (or offer) for sale, or distribute by wholesale drugs other than those specified in [Schedules C. C(1) and X] by respondent No. 5 has been canceled. He would further submit that a decision was taken by respondent No. 5 contrary to the provisions of Rule 66 of the Drug and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1945”), which provides that without affording the sufficient opportunity of hearing, the license of the like nature cannot be suspended or canceled. He would also submit that no show-cause notice was issued by respondent No. 5 before taking such a decision. 4) Mr. Rao would contend that interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner and the period of license has already expired. He would further contend that there was an observation by 3 respondent No. 5 to the effect that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Sections 420, 466, 467, and 471 of IPC. He would also contend that the petitioner has moved application for the renewal of his license before respondent No. 5 i.e. licensing authority, but it has not been considered and decided till date. He would pray for the renewal of his license. He would further state that respondent No. 5 may be directed to review its observations made with regard to the essence of criminality. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. She would submit that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, and thereafter, a decision was taken and the petitioner was not running his medical shop in accordance with the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short “Act, 1940”) and Rules, 1945. He would submit that the period of license has already expired and till date, application for renewal of his license has not been moved by the petitioner. 6) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 7) Admittedly, license was issued in favour of the petitioner under the provisions of the Act, 1940 and Rules, 1945 to sell or distribute wholesale by drugs/medicines. The documents annexed along with the return would show that show-cause notice was not issued to the petitioner before the cancellation of his license and it is in 4 violation of Rule 66 of the Rules, 1945. It is also not in dispute that the period of license has already expired and the petitioner has not moved any application for the renewal of his license. In the order impugned, respondent No. 5 observed that the conduct of the petitioner was in contravention of the provisions of Sections 420, 466, 467 and 471 of IPC, but no direction was issued to register any complaint or FIR. 8) Taking into consideration the fact that the period of license has already expired and the application has not been moved by the petitioner for renewal of his license, at this juncture, this petition is disposed of, and if the petitioner moved application(s) before respondent No. 5 for renewal of his license, the same shall be consider by respondent No. 5 strictly in accordance with the law. 9) The petitioner would be at liberty to make representation with regard to the observation made by respondent No. 5 in the concluding para, wherein an observation has been made that the conduct of the petitioner was in contravention to the provisions of Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. 10)The entire exercise shall be completed by respondent No. 5 within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11) With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi