Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 4]

Chattisgarh High Court

Amar Lal Adwani vs The State Of Chhattisgarh 10 ... on 27 August, 2018

Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra

Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra

                                                                    NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                          WPC No. 2389 of 2018

     1. Amar Lal Adwani S/o Late Shri Jiwatram Adwani Aged About 52
        Years

     2. Anil Kumar Agrawal S/o Jai Kumar Agrawal Aged About 52 Years

       M/s Laxmi Medical Store, C-15, Housing Board Colony Balco,
       District Korba, Chhattisgarh, through Its Proprietor Amarlal
       Adwani, Aged About 52 Years, S/o Late Shri Jiwatram Adwani, C-
       15, Housing Board Colony, Balco Nagar, District Korba,
       Chhattisgarh

                                                            ---- Petitioner

                                  Versus

     1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family
        Welfares Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur,
        Chhattisgarh

     2. The Controller, Food and Drug Administration Fourth Floor Block
        1, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

     3. Drug Licencing Authority, Food and Drug Administration, C/o
        Chief Medical And Health Office Rajgamar Road, Kosabadi,
        District Korba, Chhattisgarh

     4. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Rajgamar Road, Kosabadi,
        District Korba, Chhattisgarh

     5. Satyendra Kumar Dubey, S/o Shri Yogendra Dubey R/o C/15,
        Housing Board Colony, Balco, District Korba, Chhattisgarh

                                                        ---- Respondents

For Petitioners Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent-State Shri A. S. Kachhawaha, Addl. AG Hon'ble Justice Mr. Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 27/08/2018

1. Petitioners' application for renewal of the drugs licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 has been rejected on the ground that the petitioners' landlord has moved an application for their eviction before the Rent Controlling Authority, Korba.

2. It is argued that since the petitioners' licence was valid till 31.12.2016 and the petitioners still occupy the tenanted premises, the renewal could not have been refused on mere pendency of the eviction application.

3. Without entering into the dispute at this stage, ends of justice would be served if the Rent Control Authority, Korba is directed to decide the eviction dispute between the petitioners and their landlord within a period of 3 months from today and thereafter, if the petitioners are found to be entitled to occupy the premises, their application for renewal of licence shall be considered, as has been directed by the State Government in the impugned order (Annexure-P-14). It is ordered accordingly.

4. Learned State counsel and the petitioner shall inform about this order to the Rent Controlling Authority, Korba.

5. The writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Nirala