Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who run medical stores and hold licences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, had their licences suspended by the Assistant Commissioner (Zone-3) for fixed periods. They filed appeals under Rule 66(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 before the State Government, along with applications for stay of the suspension orders. However, the appellate authority neither listed the appeals nor passed any interim orders. The petitioners approached the High Court contending that the inaction of the appellate authority was rendering their statutory remedy meaningless, as the suspension periods were about to expire or had already commenced. The court found substance in the petitioners' grievance and noted that the appellate authority had fixed a hearing date in one case in the midst of the suspension period, which would cause irreparable prejudice. The court directed the appellate authority to hear and decide the stay applications within one week from the date of the order, and to list the appeals for final hearing within four weeks. The court also directed that the suspension orders shall remain stayed until the stay applications are decided. The petitions were disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Drugs and Cosmetics Act - Licence Suspension - Stay in Appeal - Rule 66(2) of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 - Petitioners' drug licences were suspended by the licensing authority for a fixed period. They filed appeals under Rule 66(2) but the appellate authority did not list the appeals or pass interim orders. The High Court held that the appellate authority must decide stay applications promptly to prevent the appeal from becoming a fait accompli, and directed the authority to hear and decide the stay applications within a week. (Paras 1-7) B) Administrative Law - Effective Remedy - Fait Accompli - Rule 66(2) of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 - The court observed that if the appellate authority does not grant interim relief, the suspension period would expire, rendering the appeal meaningless. The court directed the appellate authority to consider and decide the stay applications expeditiously, ensuring that the statutory remedy remains effective. (Paras 4-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate authority under Rule 66(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 is obliged to hear and decide interim stay applications in appeals against suspension of drug licences before the suspension period expires, to prevent the appeal from becoming infructuous.
Final Decision
The court directed the appellate authority to hear and decide the stay applications within one week from the date of the order, and to list the appeals for final hearing within four weeks. The suspension orders shall remain stayed until the stay applications are decided. The petitions were disposed of.
Law Points
- Statutory remedy of appeal must be effective
- Appellate authority must decide stay applications promptly
- Fait accompli renders appeal meaningless
