Sri Amrutha Sai Medical And Genral ... vs The State Of Ap
2022 Latest Caselaw 8942 AP

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH R0Y

                   Writ Petition No.1308 of 2019

ORDER:

This Writ Petition for mandamus is filed to declare the action

of respondent No.4 in cancelling the drug licence of the petitioner

without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, as illegal

and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently,

prayed to set aside the impugned order, dated 19.01.2019.

2) The petitioner is M/s.Sri Amrutha Sai Medical and General

Stores, represented by its proprietor, doing business in running a

medical shop. Licence in Form-20 and 21 bearing No.232, dated

23.01.2013, was granted to the petitioner by the licensing

authority to do the said business and the said licence is valid upto

22.01.2023.

3) While the petitioner was doing the said business from the

year 2013, as per the aforesaid licence that was granted to the

petitioner, earlier on 29.06.2017, the Drug Inspector, Adoni,

inspected the business premises of the petitioner and noticed that

the petitioner has contravened certain provisions of law mentioned

in the inspection report. After following the due process of law, 4th

respondent has suspended the drug licence of the petitioner under

CMR,J.

W.P.No.1308 of 2019

Rule 66(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (for short, "the

Rules") for a period of 10 days. Again, on 05.09.2017, the Drug

Inspector inspected the business premises of the petitioner and

found that the petitioner has contravened certain provisions of law

mentioned in his inspection report. After following the due

process of law, the drug licence of the petitioner was again

suspended for a period of six days.

4) Whileso, again, the Drug Inspector and the Additional

Director, Prakasam District, jointly inspected the business

premises of the petitioner on 07.01.2019 and during the

inspection, they found that the petitioner has violated certain

provisions of law. The violations are: (i) the petitioner has failed to

submit purchase bills for the drugs shown in Sl.No.9 of the

inspection report and thereby violated Rule 65(4)(4) of the Rules;

(ii) that the petitioner has failed to submit purchase and sale

particulars of the drugs shown at Sl.No.10 of the inspection report

and thereby violated Rules 65(4)(4) and 65(4)(3) of the Rules; and

(iii) that the petitioner has failed to maintain Schedule "H" Register

for verification as stated in Sl.No.12 of the inspection report and

thereby violated Rule 65(3)(1) of the Rules.

CMR,J.

W.P.No.1308 of 2019

5) After noticing the above said violations and contraventions of

relevant provisions of law, a show-cause notice was issued to the

petitioner as required under Rule 66(1) of the Rules to show-cause

in writing as to why an order cancelling/suspending the drug

licence of the petitioner should not be passed. The petitioner has

submitted its explanation on 11.01.2019.

6) After considering the said explanation, being not satisfied

with the same, the Assistant Director, Drugs Control

Administration, District Sales Licensing Authority, Kurnool, has

by the impugned order, dated 19.01.2019, cancelled the drug

licence issued to the petitioner, in the interest of public health on

the ground that the petitioner has been repeatedly indulging in

contravening the Rules set out above and as it is found that the

petitioner is habituated in contravening the provisions of the

relevant Rules of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short,

"the Act").

7) Aggrieved thereby, the instant Writ Petition has been filed

assailing the legal validity of the impugned order.

8) Heard Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Sri S.Appadhara Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Medical,

Health and Family Welfare, appearing for the respondents.

CMR,J.

W.P.No.1308 of 2019

9) Since the impugned order cancelling the drug licence of the

petitioner was passed under Rule 66(1) of the Rules, right of

appeal is provided to the petitioner under Rule 66(2) of the Rules,

which reads as follows:

"66. Cancellation and suspension of licences.--

(1) ....

(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 shall decide the same."

10) The aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that an

aggrieved person, whose licence was cancelled under Rule 66(1) of

the Rules, got an efficacious remedy of preferring an appeal

against the said order to the State Government. The petitioner did

not avail the said remedy of right to appeal conferred on it under

the Rules and filed this Writ Petition challenging the validity of the

impugned order.

11) The petitioner has deliberately suppressed the fact that right

of appeal is provided under the Rules in the affidavit filed in

support of the Writ Petition and stated that there is no other

effective alternate remedy except to approach this Court by

CMR,J.

W.P.No.1308 of 2019

invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

12) Therefore, when it is questioned as to how the writ is

maintainable when right of appeal is provided against the

impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner

before passing the impugned order and it is violative of principles

of natural justice. He would also contend that no reasons are

assigned in the impugned order for cancelling the drug licence of

the petitioner and in a way it also amounts to violation of

principles of natural justice. According to him, an order devoid of

reasons is to be construed as an order passed in violation of

principles of natural justice. Therefore, on these two grounds, he

would submit that when the impugned order is found to be passed

in violation of principles of natural justice i.e., (i) without providing

an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before passing

the impugned order of cancelling the drug licence; and (ii) without

assigning reasons for cancelling the drug licence, the party can

without availing the right of appeal, even if the said right is

conferred under the Rules, invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of

this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to

challenge the legal validity of the impugned order. In support of

CMR,J.

W.P.No.1308 of 2019

the said contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on

the judgments of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh

rendered in the case of M.Sadasiva Sekhar v. District Collector,

Kurnool1; M.Kalyani v. District Collector2; judgment of the

common High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of

Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh rendered in the

case of B.Manjula v. District Collector, Civil Supplies,

Kurnool3; and also the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in

the case of Dev Dutt v. Union of India4.

13) Sri S.Appadhara Reddy, learned Government Pleader for

Medical, Health and Family Welfare, appearing for the

respondents, would submit that Rule 66 of the Rules, which deals

with cancellation and suspension of licence only contemplates

giving an opportunity to the licensee to show-cause as to why

such an order should not be passed before cancelling the licence

and it did not contemplate any enquiry or providing an

opportunity of personal hearing. He would submit that in strict

compliance with the said Rule 66(1), a show-cause notice was

issued to the petitioner calling for its explanation as to why its

1 2003 (3) ALT 68 2 2006 (5) ALD 796 3 2015 (4) ALT 572 4 (2008) 8 SCC 725

CMR,J.

W.P.No.1308 of 2019

licence should not be cancelled for contravening and violating

certain provisions of law. He would also submit that after

considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, a

reasoned order was passed cancelling the licence of the petitioner

as the explanation submitted by it is not satisfactory. He would

submit that as the petitioner has admitted the violations

mentioned in the show-cause notice, there is no necessity of giving

any personal hearing also to the petitioner. He then contends that

when the petitioner has admitted the violations in its explanation

submitted to the aforesaid show-cause notice, it is settled law that

when no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the petitioner

by not providing personal hearing before passing the impugned

order, it would not vitiate the impugned order and the petitioner

cannot invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of violation

of principles of natural justice and he would contend that the

petitioner has to avail the remedy of appeal as contemplated

under Rule 66(2) of the Rules. Therefore, learned Government

Pleader vehemently opposed the Writ Petition and prayed to

dismiss the Writ Petition as not maintainable in view of the

efficacious remedy of appeal provided to the petitioner. In support

of his submissions, he relied on the judgment of the Three-Judge

CMR,J.

W.P.No.1308 of 2019

Bench of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Sudhir

Kumar Singh5 and the judgments of this Court in the case of M.S.

Trading v. State of A.P.6; T.Siddaiah v. State of A.P.7; and

M/s.Raja Sree Medicals v. State of A.P.8.

14) The material facts of the lis are not in controversy.

Admittedly, the Drug Inspector and the Additional Director of

Prakasam District jointly inspected the business premises of the

petitioner on 07.01.2019 and they found that the petitioner has

contravened certain provisions of law. The said material fact is

not controverted by the petitioner and in fact it is categorically

admitted that the said inspection took place on 07.01.2019 in the

business premises of the petitioner. The following violations are

found during the course of said inspection:

(i) the petitioner has failed to submit purchase bills for the

drugs shown in Sl.No.9 of the inspection report and thereby

violated Rule 65(4)(4) of the Rules;

(ii) that the petitioner has failed to submit purchase and sale

particulars for the drugs shown at Sl.No.10 of the inspection

5 2020 SCC OnLine SC 847 6 Order, dt.06.03.2020, in W.P.No.3794 of 2019 of A.P. High Court. 7 2021 (2) Drugs Cases (DC) 19 8 2020 (2) Drugs Cases (DC) 698

CMR,J.

W.P.No.1308 of 2019

report and thereby violated Rules 65(4)(4) and 65(4)(3) of the

Rules; and

(iii) that the petitioner has failed to maintain Schedule-"H"

Register for verification as stated in Sl.No.12 of the inspection

report and thereby violated Rule 65(3)(1) of the Rules.

15) Admittedly, a show-cause notice was issued as contemplated

under Rule 66(1) of the Rules to the petitioner calling for its

explanation by specifically mentioning the details of the violations

with reference to the relevant provision of law. The petitioner has

received the said show-cause notice and also has submitted its

explanation, dated 11.01.2019. It is significant to note here that

the petitioner has categorically and unequivocally admitted that

the violations that are mentioned in the show-cause notice are

committed in the written explanation. While admitting the said

violations, it is stated that the said violations are made due to

ignorance and the petitioner prayed to excuse for the mistakes

committed by it.

16) Thus, all the violations that are pointed out in the show-

cause notice are categorically and unequivocally admitted by the

petitioner.

CMR,J.

W.P.No.1308 of 2019

17) So, as the violations are categorically admitted by the

petitioner and as proper explanation was not offered, the

impugned order cancelling its licence was passed. It is significant

to note here that earlier also during two inspections conducted on

29.06.2017 and 05.09.2017, the petitioner was found to have

committed certain violations and after following due process of

law, its licence was initially suspended for ten days and again for

six days for violating certain provisions of the Act. Again, the

petitioner has committed the present violations. Therefore, as the

petitioner is found to be habituated in repeatedly violating the

provisions of law in the three inspections that were made by the

competent authorities in the business premises of the petitioner,

the licence was ultimately cancelled mentioning the said reasons

in the interest of public health. Therefore, it cannot be said that

the impugned order is devoid of reasons.

18) As the show-cause notice was issued as contemplated under

Rule 66(1) of the Rules, there is ample compliance with the

requirement of law. The said rule only contemplates issuance of

show-cause notice and passing an order stating the reasons. As

the said procedure contemplated under Rule 66(1) has been

substantially complied with before passing the impugned order of

CMR,J.

W.P.No.1308 of 2019

cancelling the licence, it cannot be said that the principles of

natural justice are violated.

19) As noticed supra, learned counsel for the petitioner would

contend that opportunity of personal hearing is not given to the

petitioner before passing the impugned order and as such, it

amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.

20) A careful perusal of Rule 66 of the Rules shows that it does

not mandate making any enquiry or providing an opportunity of

personal hearing before passing the order of cancellation of drug

licence. It is well settled law that when the Rule or the Act

contemplates causing of any enquiry or giving a right of personal

hearing before passing any adverse order, then the authority

concerned has to invariably and necessarily adhere to the said

procedure and cause an enquiry or provide an opportunity of

personal hearing. Even if personal hearing is not contemplated

during enquiry, as enquiry pre-supposes personal hearing also, an

opportunity for personal hearing is to be given. But, when enquiry

or personal hearing is not contemplated and the rule only

contemplates issuance of show-cause notice, and when such

notice is issued and explanation submitted is considered, and

thereafter, an order with some reasons is passed, it would be

CMR,J.

W.P.No.1308 of 2019

sufficient compliance with the principles of natural justice and the

procedure contemplated under the Rule. It would not vitiate the

order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

Further, when the order impugned is sought to be assailed, on the

ground of not providing an opportunity of personal hearing, that

fact by itself would not vitiate the order and the petitioner has to

further show that prejudice is caused to it in not providing an

opportunity of personal hearing. It is not pleaded anywhere in the

affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that any prejudice was

caused to the petitioner in not providing an opportunity of

personal hearing. More particularly, when the petitioner has

categorically admitted the violations and only pleaded for excuse

on humanitarian grounds, the fact that personal hearing was not

given to it would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner and it

would not vitiate the impugned order.

21) These principles of law are well settled. In the judgment of

the Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Sudhir Kumar

Singh5, it is clearly held that no prejudice is caused to the person

complaining of the breach of natural justice where such person

does not dispute the case against him or it. At para.28 of the

judgment, it is held as follows:

CMR,J.

W.P.No.1308 of 2019

"28. In some of the early judgments of this Court, the non- observance of natural justice was said to be prejudice in itself to the person affected, and proof of prejudice, independent of proof of denial of natural justice, was held to be unnecessary. The only exception to this rule is where, on "admitted or indisputable" facts only one conclusion is possible, and under the law only one penalty is permissible. In such cases, a Court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it is not necessary to observe natural justice, but because Courts do not issue writs which are "futile"."

22) In arriving at the said conclusion, the Three-Judge Bench of

the Apex Court relied on the earlier judgments of the Apex Court

rendered in the case of S.L.Kapoor v. Jagmohan9 and in the case

of P.D.Agrawal v. State Bank of India10 and held that this

statement of the law has undergone a "sea change", as follows:

"39. Decision of this Court in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan [(1980) 4 SCC 379] whereupon Mr.Rao placed strong reliance to contend that non-observance of principle of natural justice itself causes prejudice or the same should not be read "as it causes difficulty of prejudice", cannot be said to be applicable in the instant case. The principles of natural justice, as noticed hereinbefore, have undergone a sea change. In view of the decisions of this Court in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma [(1996) 3 SCC 364] and Rajendra Singh v.

State of M.P. [(1996) 5 SCC 460] the principle of law is that some real prejudice must have been caused to the complainant. The Court has shifted from its earlier concept that even a small violation shall result in the order being rendered a nullity. To the

9 (1980) 4 SCC 379 10 (2006) 8 SCC 776

CMR,J.

W.P.No.1308 of 2019

principle/doctrine of audi alteram partem, a clear distinction has been laid down between the cases where there was no hearing at all and the cases where there was mere technical infringement of the principle. The Court applies the principles of natural justice having regard to the fact situation obtaining in each case. It is not applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. It is no unruly horse. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula."

23) The Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Sudhir Kumar

Singh5 case, at para.38, after considering the earlier judgemtns of

the Apex Court rendered on the point that Courts would not pass

futile orders in the cases based on admitted facts by reason of

estoppel, acquiescence, non-challenge or non-denial, on the

ground of breach of principles of natural justice where no

prejudice is caused to the person who alleged breach of natural

justice, as the case was on admitted facts, summed-up the

analysis of law on the said point at para.39 as follows:

"39. An analysis of the aforesaid judgments thus reveals:

(1) Natural justice is a flexible tool in the hands of the judiciary to reach out in fit cases to remedy injustice. The breach of the audi alteram partem rule cannot by itself, without more, lead to the conclusion that prejudice is thereby caused.

(2) Where procedural and/or substantive provisions of law embody the principles of natural justice, their infraction per se does not lead to invalidity of the orders passed. Here again, prejudice must be caused to the litigant, except in the case of a mandatory provision of

CMR,J.

W.P.No.1308 of 2019

law which is conceived not only in individual interest, but also in public interest.

(3) No prejudice is caused to the person complaining of the breach of natural justice where such person does not dispute the case against him or it. This can happen by reason of estoppel, acquiescence, waiver and by way of non-challenge or non-denial or admission of facts, in cases in which the Court finds on facts that no real prejudice can therefore be said to have been caused to the person complaining of the breach of natural justice.

(4) In cases where facts can be stated to be admitted or indisputable, and only one conclusion is possible, the Court does not pass futile orders of setting aside or remand when there is, in fact, no prejudice caused. This conclusion must be drawn by the Court on an appraisal of the facts of a case, and not by the authority who denies natural justice to a person.

(5) The "prejudice" exception must be more than a mere apprehension or even a reasonable suspicion of a litigant. It should exist as a matter of fact, or be based upon a definite inference of likelihood of prejudice flowing from the non-observance of natural justice."

24) In Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan 11, the

Supreme Court held that the principle that in addition to breach

of natural justice, prejudice must also be proved has been

developed in several cases. In K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of

India12, also it is held that not mere violation of natural justice

11 AIR 2000 SC 2783 12 (1984) 1 SCC 43

CMR,J.

W.P.No.1308 of 2019

but de facto prejudice (other than non-issue of notice) had to be

proved.

25) In the case of M.P. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India 13, a

question arose before the Apex Court whether personal hearing

should be afforded to a person eventhough Rule 55 of the Mineral

Concession Rules only enjoins providing an opportunity to a

person to make a representation against the comments received

from the State Government or other authority, or not. While

interpreting Rule 55 of the said Rules, the Apex Court held as

follows:

"As regards the second contention, I do not think that the appellant is entitled as of right to a personal hearing. It is no doubt a principle of natural justice that a quasi-judicial tribunal cannot make any decision adverse to a party without giving him an effective opportunity of meeting any relevant allegations against him. Indeed, R.55 of the Rules, quoted supra, recognize the said principle and states that no order shall be passed against any applicant unless he has been given an opportunity to make his representations against the comments, if any, received from the State Government or other authority. The said opportunity need not necessarily be by personal hearing. It can be by written representation. Whether the said opportunity should be by written representation or by personal hearing depends upon the facts of each case and ordinarily it is in the discretion of the tribunal. The facts of the present case disclose that a written representation would

13 AIR 1966 SC 671

CMR,J.

W.P.No.1308 of 2019

effectively meet the requirements of the principles of natural justice."

26) Thus, from the law enunciated in the above judgments, the

legal position is clear that when facts are admitted or when the

facts are indisputable and when no prejudice is caused to the

person complaining violation of the principles of natural justice,

the mere fact of not giving a personal hearing would not in any

way vitiate the order in question.

27) Even in the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of A.P.,

relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner rendered in the

case of M.Sadasiva Sekhar1, it is clearly held that opportunity of

giving oral hearing to a dealer in enquiring into irregularities

alleged to have been committed by him and in ordering

cancellation, is not necessary in every case and also held that

where an opportunity of personal hearing is not given, the burden

is on the dealer to plead and prove the prejudice caused to him by

not giving a personal hearing. Further clearly held that illegality

of the order cannot be readily presumed wherever no personal

hearing was given. Further held that the impugned order has to

be scrutinized by applying the test of prejudice.

CMR,J.

W.P.No.1308 of 2019

28) Thus, the legal position is clear from the above judgment

that giving opportunity of personal hearing is not necessary in

every case and a person complaining violation of principles of

natural justice on the ground of not providing personal hearing

has to show that prejudice is caused to him by not providing any

such right of personal hearing. The law is also clear that the order

complained has to be scrutinized by applying the test of prejudice

and the petitioner has to plead and prove the said prejudice.

29) It is nowhere pleaded in the writ petition nor proved that any

prejudice is caused to the petitioner because of not giving an

opportunity of personal hearing. Therefore, the petitioner cannot

seek to assail the impugned order on the ground of not giving

personal hearing to it.

30) As regards passing of order with reasons is concerned, since

the petitioner has admitted the violations and only pleaded for

excuse on humanitarian grounds and as the explanation was not

found to be satisfactory by the concerned authority, who passed

the impugned order, it cannot be said that the impugned order is

devoid of any reason. If the petitioner denies that any violation is

committed, and has submitted explanation to that effect, then the

authority concerned is required to assign reasons explaining as to

CMR,J.

W.P.No.1308 of 2019

how a violation was committed. When there is no denial of

violating the rules and when they are admitted, if any vague

explanation is given, then there need not be many reasons to be

assigned for passing the order of cancelling the licence. More

particularly, when the petitioner is habituated in repeating the

violations and as its licence was suspended twice earlier for

violating the provisions of law and as it is found that the petitioner

has again committed the said violations and as no proper

explanation is offered and when the licence was cancelled in the

interest of public health on the above grounds, it cannot be said

that the impugned order is devoid of reasons and thereby the

principles of natural justice are violated. So, the judgment relied

on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Dev

Dutt4, wherein it is stated that requirement of giving reasons is

part of natural justice would not advance the case of the petitioner

any further. Further, the facts of the said case are also

distinguishable on facts.

31) As regards the other two judgments relied on by the

petitioner of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in

M.Kalyani2 and B.Manjula3 are concerned, in the case of

M.Kalyani2, the allegations ascribed are denied and as such, it is

held that the failure to assign reasons for holding that the

CMR,J.

W.P.No.1308 of 2019

allegations levelled against her are proved, has the effect of

vitiating the order of cancellation. Here, as noticed supra, the

allegations are admitted. In the case of B.Manjula3, as enquiry

was contemplated, it is held that enquiry pre-supposes an

opportunity of personal hearing. Therefore, these judgments are

not of any avail to the case of the petitioner.

32) When the impugned order is found to be passed in

accordance with the procedure contemplated under law, and when

it is found to be not vitiated for non-compliance with the

principles of natural justice, the writ petitioner cannot invoke the

extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. The petitioner has to avail its right of

appeal provided under Rule 66(2) of the Rules.

33) This Court in the case of M.S. Trading6 held at para.6 of the

judgment as follows:

"Lastly, this Court also holds that the existence of an alternative remedy is a bar to the writ petition being entertained. Normally, this is self-imposed restriction imposed by the Court on itself and in a very limited circumstances, a writ is entertained when there is an alternative remedy. In the case on hand, this Court finds that there is neither breach of Rules of natural justice nor breach of statutory Rules. Therefore, this Court holds that the existence of an alternative remedy clearly precludes this Court from entertaining this Writ Petition."

CMR,J.

W.P.No.1308 of 2019

34) Following the said judgment, again, this Court in the case of

M/s.Raja Sree Medicals8, held that when it is not the case of the

petitioner that a reasonable opportunity was not afforded to the

petitioner, and that the authority who passed the order has no

jurisdiction to cancel the drug licence, or the impugned order is

passed in violation of any of the statutory provisions, the Writ

Petition is not maintainable and the petitioner has to avail the

right of appeal. Again, this Court, in T.Siddaiah7 case, also held

that the petitioner has to avail the alternative remedy of appeal

under Rule 66(2) of the Rules on the question whether the

petitioner had been given an opportunity to set out his defences in

reply to the show-cause notices dated 27.11.2020 and

23.01.2021. In all the above three cases, this Court was not

inclined to entertain the Writ Petitions and held that the petitioner

has to avail the right of appeal under Rule 66(2) of the Rules.

Thus, this Court had taken a consistent view that when right of

appeal is provided under Rule 66(2) of the Rules, that the

petitioner has to avail the said remedy and cannot invoke the writ

jurisdiction of this Court.

35) If the grievance of the petitioner is that inadequate reasons

are given for cancelling the drug licence or the reasons given are

legally not sustainable, on that ground, the petitioner has to

CMR,J.

W.P.No.1308 of 2019

challenge the impugned order by availing the statutory right of

appeal as provided under Rule 66(2) of the Rules. But, the

petitioner cannot challenge the said order on those grounds by

invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

36) Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not

maintainable. However, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an

appeal under Rule 66(2) of the Rules to the State Government. In

computing the period of limitation of three months as

contemplated under Rule 66(2) of the Rules, the time spent during

the pendency of the Writ Petition from the date of filing the Writ

Petition till its disposal shall be excluded. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any,

shall also stand closed.

________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:23-11-2022.

Note:

1) L.R. copy to be marked.

2) Issue C.C. by 24.11.2022.

B/O cs

CMR,J.

W.P.No.1308 of 2019

*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY + Writ Petition No.1308 of 2019

% Dated 23-11-2022

# M/s.Sri Amrutha Sai Medical & General Stores, rep. by its Proprietor ..... Petitioner Vs.

$ The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Medical & Health Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, A.P. & Ors.

.....Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel.

^ Counsel for respondents:

Sri S.Appadhara Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare.

<GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred:

1. 2003 (3) ALT 68

2. 2006 (5) ALD 796

3. 2015 (4) ALT 572

4. (2008) 8 SCC 725

5. 2020 SCC OnLine SC 847

6. Order, dt.06.03.2020, in W.P.No.3794 of 2019 of A.P. High Court.

7. 2021 (2) Drugs Cases (DC) 19

8. 2020 (2) Drugs Cases (DC) 698

9. (1980) 4 SCC 379

10. (2006) 8 SCC 776

11. AIR 2000 SC 2783

12. (1984) 1 SCC 43

13. AIR 1966 SC 671

CMR,J.

W.P.No.1308 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Writ Petition No.1308 of 2019

M/s.Sri Amrutha Sai Medical & General Stores, rep. by its Proprietor ..... Petitioner Vs.

The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Medical & Health Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, A.P. & Ors.

.....Respondents

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 23-11-2022

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers -- may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be -Yes- marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to -Yes- see the fair copy of the Judgment?

JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY