Kerala High Court
M/S. Spectrum Pharma vs State Of Kerala on 12 February, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
WP(C) NO. 37742 OF 2024
1
2026:KER:13064
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 23RD MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 37742 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
M/S. SPECTRUM PHARMA
63/93, 63/94, DD MILE STONE,
KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
BY ADVS.
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SHRI.SIDHARTH.R.WARIYAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF DRUGS CONTROL,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
2 THE ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLLER AND LICENSING AUTHORITY
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLLER,
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 030.
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
SRI. C.K.SURESH, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 37742 OF 2024
2
2026:KER:13064
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
W.P.(C) No.37742 of 2024
...................................................
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order, issued by the second respondent, suspending the drug licence issued to the petitioner.
2. The primary contention raised by the petitioner in taking recourse to the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice. Petitioner has also raised other contentions pointing out the absence of merits of the impugned order as well. Petitioner has also raised a contention that the proviso to Rule 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 had not been followed.
3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents fairly submitted that the impugned order has been passed without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
4. Since the impugned order has been issued without hearing the petitioner, I am satisfied that the contention raised by the petitioner, on the basis of violation of principles of natural justice, has merits. An order passed without hearing the affected party, can have no legs to stand, in the eye of law.
5. Though the learned counsel raised contentions on the merits of the order WP(C) NO. 37742 OF 2024 3 2026:KER:13064 and pointed out the untenable findings rendered therein, I am of the view that those are not matters that need to be agitated before this Court at this juncture, in the light of the finding in the preceding paragraphs and they are all left open.
Accordingly, Ext.P3 order is hereby quashed and the second respondent is directed to issue fresh notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after granting an opportunity of being heard.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/12/02/2026 WP(C) NO. 37742 OF 2024 4 2026:KER:13064 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 37742 OF 2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO. ADCEKM/3633/2024-F DATED 18.09.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT -P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 30.09.2024 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT -P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. ADCEKM/3633/2024-F DATED 17.10.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT DATED 13.09.2024.