Neolacta Lifesciences Private ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 11212 Kant

                          1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                       BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

   WRIT PETITION NO.14488 OF 2022(GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

NEOLACTA LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 63,
KIADB BOMMASANDRA, JIGANI LINK ROAD,
BANDENAHALLASANDRA VILLAGE,
ANEKAL TALUK,BENGALURU 560 105.

REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
MR. MADHU JOSHI,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O MR. BALARAM JOSHI.
                                       ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANU PRABHAKAR KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
   THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
   DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH,
   GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
   DHANVANTHRI ROAD,
   BENGLAURU - 560 009.

2. DRUG LICENSING AUTHORITY
   DIRECTORATE OF AYUSH
   (AYURVEDA YOGA AND NATUROPAHTY
   UNANI SIDDHA AND HOMEOPATHY)
   DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH,
   GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
   DHANVANTHRI ROAD,
   BENGLAURU - 560 009.
   REPRESENTED BY
   DRUG LICENSING OFFICER.
                                      ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.V.KRISHNA, AGA FOR R1)
                                           2

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE      THE    IMPUGNED       NOTICE     BEARING
NO.AYUSH/22/DLA1/2021 DATED 05.07.2022 ANNEXURE-A
ISSUED BY THE R2.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                                    ORDER

Petitioner - company is knocking at the doors of

Writ Court for assailing the Show Cause Notice dated

05.07.2022 issued by the second respondent at

Annexure-A.

2. The impugned Show Cause Notice mentioned

above reads as under:

"¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÁVgÀĪÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀV ¸ÀA.JAiÀÄÄJ¸ï-993 gÀr 10 GvÀà£ÀßUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £Áj QëÃgÀ¢AzÀ vÀAiÀiÁj¸À®Ä C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ethical clearance ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÁUÀ, M/s Peopletree Hospital's Ethical Committee gÀªÀgÀÄ PÉêÀ® ¸ÀA±ÉÆÃzsÀ£É PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä ªÀiÁvÀæ clinical study £ÀqɸÀ®Ä C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, ªÁtÂdåPÀgÀtPÉÌ §¼À¸ÀĪÀAw®è. DzÀgÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀV ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¸ÀzÀj zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄwÛÃj. ¸ÀzÀj ¤ªÀÄä PÀæªÀĪÀÅ New Drug & Clinical Trial Rules 2019gÀ G®èAWÀ£ÉAiÀiÁVzÉ.

¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ºÁ°£À ¸ÀAUÀæºÀuÉ ªÀivÀÄÛ ªÀiÁgÁlªÀÅ, ªÀiÁ£ÀªÀ ºÀPÀÄÌUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄ»¼Á ºÀPÀÄÌUÀ¼À §UÉÎ ºÀ®ªÀÅ £ÉÊwPÀ ¸ÀªÀĸÉåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß M¼ÀUÉÆÃArzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀÆPÀëJä «ZÁgÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ vÀPÀët¢AzÀ eÁjUÉ §gÀĪÀAvÉ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è vÀAiÀiÁj¸À®Ä C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ OµÀzsÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß AiÀiÁPÉà »A¥ÀrAiÀĨÁgÀzÀÄ JA§ÄzÀPÉÌ F £ÉÆÃn¸ï vÀ®Ä¦zÀ 07 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À M¼ÀUÁV ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ vÀ¦àzÀ°è ¤ÃªÀÅ ºÉüÀĪÀÅzÀÄ K£ÀÄ E®èªÉAzÀÄ ¨sÁ«¹ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ PÀæªÀĪÀÄ»¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ."

3. Learned AGA appearing for the respondents

vehemently opposes the writ petition contending that

ordinarily, in matters of show cause notices issued under

statutes, the Writ Courts would not grant indulgence

readily inasmuch as, it is open to the noticee to show

cause against the proposed action. Even otherwise, the

petition is not maintainable, argues he. So contending,

he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and having perused the petition papers, this

Court accords a very limited reprieve to the petitioner -

Company as under and for the following reasons:

a) Ordinarily, the validity of show cause notices will

not be gone into by the Writ Court at the first instance

till after cause is shown by the notice to the authority

concerned subject to all just exceptions into which

argued case of the petitioner does not fit, as rightly

contended by learned AGA. The grant of licence and its

cancellation are governed policy consideration of the

statute in questio, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1948; in

matters like this, the authority should take a call on the

basis of cause to be shown by the petitioner and in

accordance with law.

b) The apprehension of the petitioner that his cause

if shown, may not be accepted by the concerned

authority and that an adverse order may be passed

against him, is bit difficult to examine at this stage.

There is a presumption as to regularity of statutory

proceedings of law vide Article 261 of the Constitution of

India, which reads as under:

"Public act, records and judicial proceedings.-

(1) Full faith and credit shall be given throughout the territory of India to public act, records and judicial proceedings of the Union and of every State.

(2) The manner in which and the conditions under which the acts, records and proceedings referred to in clause (1) shall be proved and the effect thereof determined shall be as provided by law made by Parliament.

(3) Final judgments or orders delivered or passed by civil courts in any part of the territory of India shall be capable of execution anywhere within that territory according to law."

c) The above apprehension of the learned counsel

for petitioner can be addressed this way that his client's

explanation in contemplation would be considered by the

second respondent and order shall be issued in

accordance with law; however, the said order shall not

be given effect to for a period of two weeks from the

date it is communicated to the petitioner. This would do

justice to both the sides.

With the above observations, this petition is

disposed off keeping open all contentions of the parties.

Costs made easy.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Bsv