M/S New Green Medical Hall Represented By Proprietor Md. Mahmood Alam vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the writ application lacked merit and was accordingly dismissed. Regarding the first issue, the Court found that the petitioner's argument for partial cancellation was not acceptable because the Assistant Drug Controller had identified several serious irregularities beyond the sale of hand sanitizers. These included the absence of the pharmacist, deliberate overwriting in sales invoices to conceal illegalities, and the fabrication of a sales invoice. The Court emphasized the grave nature of these illegalities, especially in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, and stated that the licensing authority's opinion on the gravity of the situation was paramount. The Court distinguished the present case from Universal Drug House Private Limited, noting that in the latter, the violations were specific to certain items, whereas here, multiple serious breaches were found. Regarding the second issue, while the petitioner claimed prejudice due to non-supply of the forgery report, the Court noted that the sales invoice in question lacked crucial details like the manufacturer's name, competent authority's signature, and GST details, and the petitioner had not clearly established the existence of the supplier. The Court found no reason to interfere with the licensing authority's decision based on these facts. The Court also noted that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal, which they had not availed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s New Green Medical Hall, challenged the cancellation of its drug licence by the Assistant Drug Controller, Lakhisarai, under Rule 66(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The cancellation followed an inspection on April 7, 2020, which revealed several deficiencies: absence of the pharmacist, black marketing of hand sanitizers (selling at Rs. 186/- instead of Rs. 50/-), un-updated sales invoices with overwriting on invoice No. 907, and failure to present purchase records. The petitioner's reply to the show cause notice claimed the pharmacist was on a meal break, purchase documents were temporarily unavailable, and ignorance of the price notification for sanitizers. The petitioner also submitted a sales invoice for hand sanitizers purchased from Jai Mata Di Traders, which was later found to be forged and fabricated by the Assistant Drug Controller, Patna. The petitioner argued for partial cancellation of the licence, citing a previous High Court decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Assistant Drug Controller was justified in completely cancelling the petitioner's drug licence under Rule 66(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, given the alleged irregularities, or if a partial cancellation limited to the sale of hand sanitizers was appropriate, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner was prejudiced by the non-supply of the report confirming the forgery of the sales invoice, thereby rendering the impugned order vulnerable, as contended by the petitioner? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the irregularities, particularly concerning hand sanitizers, warranted only a partial cancellation of the licence, not a complete revocation. They relied on the case of Universal Drug House Private Limited vs. State of Bihar and others, arguing that the licensing authority could have limited the cancellation to specific items. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the complete cancellation was invalid because they were not supplied with the report that declared their sales invoice as forged and fabricated, thus denying them a fair opportunity to respond to that specific finding. Revenue's arguments: The State did not explicitly present arguments in the provided text, but the Assistant Drug Controller's actions and the Court's reasoning indicate that the revenue's position was that the cumulative gravity of the irregularities, including the fabrication of documents, justified the complete cancellation of the licence.