Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


M/s New Agrawal Ausshodhalaya v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 61744 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 3174 (20 September 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel.

By the impugned order dated 15.6.2005 (Annexure ''3' to the writ petition) respondent no. 6 has cancelled the drug licence of the petitioner under Rule 66 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 on the ground that a show-cause notice was given which was not complied with by the petitioner. Thereafter the licence was suspended for a month and again the petitioner-firm was directed to furnish the documents required by the show-cause notice for verification and to sent a competent representative for this purpose to the licensing authority, respondent no. 6, but even then the petitioner failed to furnish those documents or get them verified.

Having regard to the contention of the petitioner that they did not receive the show-cause notice, we permit the petitioner 15 days time from today to sent an authorized representative, having knowledge of the matter, with the original relevant documents as well as its self-attested photocopies before respondent no. 6 for physical verification. If respondent no. 6, after verification and such enquiry as he may consider necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case, finds the licence as well as the activity of the petitioner in order and not violative of the condition of licence or of the law he will reconsider the matter and pass appropriate fresh orders restoring the licence, which has been cancelled, or maintaining his earlier order with fresh reasons for the same. Either way, the decision will be taken by respondent no. 6 within 15 days from the date on which the representative of the petitioner furnishes these materials before him along with a certified copy of this order.

For a period of one month from today no action will be taken against the petitioner under Rule 66-A of the Rules in view of the order passed above.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Certified copy of this order may be given on payment of requisite charges within three days.

Dated : 20.9.2005.


Writ No. 61744-05.


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.