Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Parmanand Medical Stores Thr vs Union Of India Thr on 14 March, 2016
WP-725-2016
(M/S PARMANAND MEDICAL STORES THR Vs UNION OF INDIA THR)
14-03-2016
Shri Anil Mishra, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Nakul Khedkar, Advocate for the respondents.
This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the notices, Annexures P/1 Colly, issued to the petitioners by respondent No.4 in exercise of powers under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act in connection with an enquiry initiated by Preventive and Intelligence (P&I) Cell, registered at Crime No.1/2015. The petitioners, who are dealers and stockists of medicines stationed at Gwalior, have been called upon to furnish documents, i.e., photo identity card, drug licence of M/s Pharma Sales, Gwalior, bank transaction details of M/s Pharma Sales, sale-purchase details with M/s Ram Lakhan Pharmacy, sale-purchase details of phensedyl cough syrup, for a period of two years. Learned counsel for the petitioners takes exception to the notices on the premise that because of such notices issued the petitioners are not able to keep the stock of medicines particularly phensedyl cough syrup and the same amounts to unreasonable restriction in carrying on the business of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that respective reply of the petitioners has been submitted along with the requisite documents as far back as in the months of November, 2015, December, 2015 and January, 2016. Shri Nakul Khedkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, appears on advance notice and on instruction informs that as a matter of fact Crime No.1/2015 is under investigation by P&I Cell at Indore and in connection thereof notices have been issued to such stockists who are in receipt of the stock of medicines detailed in the notices. He also contended that no stock of medicines, particularly that of phensedyl cough syrup has been seized from the possession of the petitioners. Such complaint of the petitioners that they are not able to do their business due to seizure of the stock is not based on facts. More over, there is no such document in that behalf.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, this writ petition is misconceived. So far no action has been taken by the respondents against petitioners. Since the investigation is in progress in connection with Crime No.1/2015, the petitioners are expected to participate and cooperate in the investigation so conducted and also facilitate the expeditious completion of the investigation. If the petitioners are still required to supply more information, they should rise to the occasion and provide the same to respondents. This Court hopes and trusts that the authority concerned shall take prompt decision in the matter.
With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE