High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 01 PAT CK 0127

M/S. Bihar Medico vs State Of Bihar And Ors

Patna High Court · Decided on 7 January 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashutosh Kumar, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14051 Of 2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 400 words
1.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

2.

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.08.2018 passed by the Assistant Drug Controller, Patna whereby the application preferred on

behalf of the petitioner for release of the seized drugs which ultimately were found to be genuine and standard and for payment of compensation for

those medicines having expired while in custody of the Drug Controller, has been rejected.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in course of raid in the shop of the petitioner which is run under the name and style of M/S

Bihar Medico, certain drugs were seized. The charges levelled against the petitioner was of not keeping the invoices of the purchase of such

medicines in order and that some of the medicines required to be sampled and sent for examination about its contents and genuineness.

4.

It has been submitted that the report has since been received and no anomaly has been found in such report. With respect to the invoices of the

medicines which were seized, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that those were kept in the hard-disk which were presented before the

concerned officer.

5.

However, the order impugned merely states that no new facts were brought by the petitioner for those goods to be released or for passing any

order with respect to payment of compensation/price of the goods which expired because of non-disposal of the application preferred by the petitioner.

6.

Perused the order impugned, which does not indicate any reason for holding that there was violation of Rule 65(6) & (7) of the Drugs & Cosmetics

Rules, 1945. The order does not depict any reason whatsoever for rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

7.

For the order to be completely non-speaking, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and therefore is set aside.

8.

The concerned officer is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, adverting to the grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner and giving

his own reasons for not accepting the same.

9.

This order shall be passed within a period of four weeks of the filing of the application along with a copy of this order which shall be done by the

petitioner within a period of two weeks from today.

10.

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed off.