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 11]

Calcutta High Court

Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 22 November, 2010

Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas

Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas

                       WP No. 1393 of 2010

                  IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

                 Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

                        ORIGINAL SIDE
    ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL & ANR.                       Petitioners

        Versus

   THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.          Respondents

BEFORE:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS Date : 22nd November, 2010.
The Court :-The petitioners in this art.226 petition dated November 12, 2010 are questioning the order of the Director of Drugs Control, West Bengal dated October 25, 2010 ( at p.72) suspending the second petitioner for a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order. The order suspending the first petitioner was made on the grounds that the first petitioner contravened the "label provision" under rule 96(1)(ix) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
Notices of this petition have been given to the Director of Drugs Control. The Director has chosen not to appear at this stage.
After hearing counsel and considering the case revealed by the petition and the documents produced with it, I am of 2 the view that it will be appropriate to admit the petition and make a restraining order.
The petitioners' case before the Director of Drugs Control was that the apparent irregularities in labeling the packet and tube of the drugs concerned did not take place because of anything done by the petitioners. Admittedly, no step has been taken against the manufacturer. It is evident that suspension has been ordered as a punishment and not for the purpose of any ongoing enquiry. In my tentative opinion the Director ought not to have inflicted the punishment especially when the drugs in question were not seized and forfeited.
For these reasons, I admit the petition and stay the operation of the impugned order dated October 25, 2010. The respondents shall file opposition within five weeks; reply, if any, shall be filed by a week thereafter.
This order shall be communicated to the respondents within a week and affidavit of service showing compliance shall be filed at the time of final hearing. Liberty to mention the petition for final hearing. Certified xerox.
(JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, J) sksr.