9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent to grant sufficient time to answer the show cause notice dated 20.3.2010. 2.2. According to the petitioner, her family, including her husband, who is the Manager of the petitioner/proprietary concern, has been doing the business in medicine and drugs after obtaining permission, licence, etc. in the name of Vasantha Enterprises, Vasanthameena Enterprises and Meena Health Care Private Limited. The licence has been granted by the authorities under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for brevity, the Act ) and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (for brevity, the Rules ) framed thereunder. 2.3. It is stated that based on a complaint given by the Drugs Inspector, Perambur Range against her husband, he surrendered before the police authorities on 23.3.2010 and was taken into custody as a detenu under Act 14 of 1982. It is based on the complaint lodged by the Drugs Inspector, Perambur Range against the petitioner's husband, it is stated that the petitioner's business premises was also sealed by the third respondent herein, who was the fourth respondent in the writ petition. It was against the same, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.7986 of 2010. 2.4. In the meantime, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recting to appear on 25.5.2010 and also for a direction to give sufficient time to answer the show cause notice dated 20.3.2010 after completion of the inventory by the third respondent herein. 2.8. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by this Court by a common order dated 18.8.2010. While passing the order, this Court has set aside the communication of the second respondent dated 21.5.2010 and directed the second respondent to furnish the copies of the documents relied upon in the show cause notice within two weeks from the date of receipt of that order and thereafter, the petitioners were directed to give a final reply to the show cause notice within four weeks from the date of furnishing of documents and removal of seal from the premises of the petitioners, leaving it open to the second respondent to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law. It is apposite to extract the following paragraphs of the order dated 18.8.2010: 8. These writ petitions are posted before me along with W.P.Nos.7985 and 7986 of 2010. The respondents have filed counter affidavit and raised various contentions. Since the writ petitions are being disposed of not on merits, it is not n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs as well as learned Advocate General, these writ petitions are disposed of by setting aside the communication dated 21.5.2010 and the second respondent is directed to furnish copy of the documents relied on in the show cause notice, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the petitioners are directed to give final reply to the show cause notices dated 20.3.2010 within a period of four weeks from the date of furnishing of the said documents and removal of seals from the petitioners' business premises and on receipt of the same, it is open to the second respondent to pass orders on merits strictly in accordance with law, in the action initiated through the show cause notice dated 20.3.2010. This order shall not be construed as approving the show cause notices, on merits. 2.9. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the said order having been passed on 18.8.2010, the seal of the premises has not been removed and the premises has not been handed over to the petitioner. However, the third respondent is making verifications and segregation of drugs at intermittent days in a casual manner. According to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of manufacturing, batch number, etc. by certain persons and that a team of Drug Inspectors of Drugs Control Department, Chennai was constituted to find out the illegal activities and on preliminary investigation, it was revealed that a gang of unscrupulous persons are involved in these illegal activities with the aid of licensed dealers in Chennai like Meena Health Care Private Limited, Vasantha Meena Enterprises, and others, and on 10.3.2010, it was found by the Drugs Inspector, Ashok Nagar Range that the petitioner has purchased and sold Renerve capsules, which is a spurious drug as per Section 17B(e) of the Act, and hence, a show cause notice was issued for cancellation of licence in Forms 20B and 21B. 3.4. It was challenging the said show cause notice, writ petition in W.P.No.11239 of 2010 was filed. It is stated that there was an interim order passed by this Court on 18.8.2010, as follows: The second respondent is directed to furnish the copies of the documents relied on in the show cause notice within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. On receipt of the same the petitioner are directed to give final reply to the show cause notices dated 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er and her representatives. It is stated that the premises did not have electricity supply due to non payment of electricity bills and the supply was restored in the afternoon after clearing the arrears bills by the petitioner. Cleaning work was done at Vasantha Meena Enterprises and due to the shortage of company staff, the work could not be continued at the premises and at the request of the petitioner, the premises were locked at 1645 Hrs, 1650 Hrs and 1730 Hrs respectively and it is stated that the petitioner assured to make arrangement for manpower to continue the work on 20.9.2010. 4.2. It is stated that, on 20.9.2010, the process of segregation was continued and the valid, expiry and short expiry medicines were segregated in the presence of the petitioner, her representatives and the Drugs Inspector. It is stated that in deference to the order of this Court, on 7.10.2010, the petitioner was permitted to sell the valid medicines worth about ₹ 2,400/-, after obtaining clearance from the Drugs Inspector. It was stated that access was provided to the petitioner to further produce purchase bills, but the petitioner and her representatives did not produce any purchase bil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to give detailed explanation to the show cause notice and inasmuch as such access to the computers has not been given to the petitioner, it is disobedience of the order of this Court and the intention of the respondents is to cancel the licence somehow or other and therefore, they should be dealt with severely in accordance with law. 6.4. The order dated 18.8.2010 has to be read in the light of the concept of the principles of natural justice, since the show cause notice issued has to be given proper reply and that requires materials to be collected and inasmuch as such opportunity has not been given, there is a statutory violation and in this regard, he would rely upon the judgment in Uma Nath Pandey and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, [2009] 12 SCC 40. 6.5. The passing of the order by the second respondent dated 21.10.2010, which, according to the petitioner, has not even been communicated to him, cancelling the licence without even giving opportunity to the petitioner to give reply to the show cause notice is liable to be set aside. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Amit Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. and another, 2011 (1) Crim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r omission on the part of an agent or employee, the licence shall not be cancelled or suspended if the licensee proves to the satisfaction of the licensing authority:- (a) that the act or omission was not instigated or connived at by him or, if the licensee is a firm or company by a partner of the firm or a director of the company, or (b) that he or his agent or employee had not been guilty of any similar act or omission within twelve months before the date on which the act or omission in question took place, or where his agent or employee had been guilty of any such act or omission the licensee had not or could not reasonably have had, knowledge of that previous act or omission, or (c) if the act or omission was a continuing act or omission, he had not or could not reasonable have had knowledge of that previous act or omission, or (d) that he had used due diligence to ensure that the conditions of the licence or the provisions of the Act or the Rules thereunder were observed. (2) A licensee whose licence has been suspended or cancelled may, within three months of the date of order under sub-rule (1), prefer an appeal against that order to the State Government, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng directions, as elicited above. 12. It is true that the learned Advocate General at the time of disposal of the writ petition has agreed to give the petitioner access to records and computers to prepare detailed explanation and consequent to that, the operative order has been passed in paragraph (11) by this Court in the order dated 18.8.2010. It is relevant to reproduce paragraph (11) once again for the purpose of better appreciation of the case: 11. In the light of the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Advocate General, these writ petitions are disposed of by setting aside the communication dated 21.5.2010 and the second respondent is directed to furnish copy of the documents relied on in the show cause notice, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the petitioners are directed to give final reply to the show cause notices dated 20.3.2010 within a period of four weeks from the date of furnishing of the said documents and removal of seals from the petitioners' business premises and on receipt of the same, it is open to the second respondent to pass orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his patients the name and address of the authority, institution or the Registered Medical Practitioner as the case may be, (c) the name of the drug, the quantity and the batch number, (d) the name of the manufacturer. (e) the signature of the competent person under whose supervision the sale was effected. (2)Carbon copies of cash or credit memos specified in clause (1) shall be preserved as records for a period of three years from the date of the sale of the drug. it is the duty of the petitioner to preserve the carbon copies of the cash or credit memos specified clause (1) for a period of three years and therefore, on these two days when the premises was opened by removing the seal, the petitioner should have produced those carbon copies. 16. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner that after coming into effect of the accounting system through computers, there is no question of keeping the carbon copies and the said rules have become practically impossible to be performed and therefore, unless and until a chance is given to the petitioner to have access to the computers, there is no possibility to give proper explanation to the show cause notice. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in Uma Nath Pandey and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, [2009] 12 SCC 40, wherein the Supreme Court emphasized about the importance of the compliance of the principles of natural justice in adjudication process by relying upon various English judgments, is no doubt an established rule of law. But, unfortunately, that is not going to be of any help to the petitioner in contempt proceedings, wherein the only question to be considered is as to whether there is any deliberate conduct on the part of the respondents. 22. The law is well settled that in cases of contempt, there must be a wilful disobedience and flouting of the court order. The mere misinterpretation cannot be construed to be a deliberate violation of the court order, as it was held in Indian Airports Employees' Union v. Ranjan Chatterjee, [1999] 2 SCC 537. The Supreme Court, in the said judgment, has held as follows: 7. It is well settled that disobedience of orders of the court, in order to amount to civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 must be wilful and proof of mere disobedience is not sufficient (S.S. Roy v. State of Orissa, AIR 1960 SC 190). Where there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es not contain any specific direction regarding a matter or if there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein then it will be better to direct the parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter for clarification of the order instead of the court exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon itself the power to decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. If this limitation is borne in mind then criticisms which are sometimes levelled against the courts exercising contempt of court jurisdiction that it has exceeded its powers in granting substantive relief and issuing a direction regarding the same without proper adjudication of the dispute in its entirety can be avoided. This will also avoid multiplicity of proceedings because the party which is prejudicially affected by the judgment or order passed in the contempt proceeding and granting relief and issuing fresh directions is likely to challenge that order and that may give rise to another round of litigation arising from a proceeding which is intended to maintain the majesty and image of courts. 24. It was held in Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
