Kerala High Court
Milton J Thalakkottur vs State Of Kerala on 4 April, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 23975 OF 2013
PETITIONER:
MILTON J THALAKKOTTUR,
S/O.LATE JOSEPH,AGED 48, MANAGING PARTNER,
'TRIGLOBE MEDICARE', XV/94, DREAM LAND BUILDING,
GURUVAYOOR ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR-680 503.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DRUGS CONTROLLER,
OFFICE OF THE DURGS CONTROLLER, RED CROSS ROAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035.
3 THE DRUGS INSPECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE DRUGS CONTROLLER, THRISSUR-680 020.
SRI. VENUGOPAL V (GP)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 23975 OF 2013
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the managing partner of a partnership firm
engaged in the wholesale distributorship business of Allopathic
Medicines of various companies. The petitioner has obtained
licences for the same under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics
Act, 1940 and the Rules made thereunder. On an inspection
carried out at the premises of the petitioner by the officials of the
Drugs Control Department, Ext.P1 Inspection Report was drawn
up pointing out certain irregularities. Thereafter, Ext.P2 show
cause notice was issued referring to the irregularities and calling
upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the various licences
issued to the petitioner should not suspended as per Rule 66 of the
Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945. The petitioner preferred Ext.P3
reply to the said show cause notice. Following the submission of
the reply, a further inspection was conducted at the premises of
the petitioner and it was noticed that irregularities were still
subsisting despite issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner.
Therefore, the Drugs Controller and Licensing Authority issued
Ext.P7 order suspending the licence granted to the petitioner for a
period of three days excluding Sunday as a deterrent measure. The
WP(C) NO. 23975 OF 2013
petitioner preferred Ext.P8 appeal before the Government against
Ext.P7 order. The Government by Ext.P9 rejected the appeal and
vacated the stay granted in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner
is thus before this Court by filing the above writ petition.
2. A reading of the pleadings in the writ petition will
indicate that certain irregularities, though described as technical
by the petitioner, were found in the inspection conducted at the
premises of the petitioner. Those irregularities are set out in detail
in Ext.P1. The petitioner was issued with a show cause notice
referring to the irregularities in Ext.P1 and on the petitioner
furnishing a reply taking up a contention that all records have
been maintained in a proper manner, a further inspection was
ordered. The further inspection report (Ext.P4) also indicates that
certain irregularities continue to exist. It is on this basis that
Ext.P7 order was issued by the competent authority. The
adjudication of the questions raised by the petitioner in the writ
petition involves the adjudication of disputed questions of fact,
which cannot be resorted to in a writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
Therefore, I find no ground made out to interfere with
Ext.P7 order of the original authority or Ext.P9 order of the
WP(C) NO. 23975 OF 2013
Government rejecting the appeal filed against Ext.P7 order, the
writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. However,
considering the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the irregularities pointed out were only trivial and
considering the submission that the records are now properly
maintained, I direct the 2 nd respondent to conduct a further
inspection of the premises and records of the petitioner through
the 3rd respondent and if no irregularity is noticed at the time of
further inspection, the penalty imposed on the petitioner shall be
modified to one of warning. It is made clear that if further
irregularities are noticed, the order suspending the licence will
stand revived.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
DK
WP(C) NO. 23975 OF 2013
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23975/2013
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIIT P1. TRUE COPY OF INSPECTION REPORT OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT WITH TYPED COPY.
EXHIIT P2. TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED
16/5/2012 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIIT P3. TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 6/6/2012
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIIT P4. TRUE COPY OF INSPECTION REPORT DATED
21/12/2012 WITH TYPED COPY.
EXHIIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER FORM DATED
13/12/2012 ISSUED BY DR.KOSHI GEORGE
OF KOSHI'S CLINIC.
EXHIIT P6. TRUE COPY OF ORDER FORM DATED
16/12/2012 ISSUED BY DR.ALI OF
DR.ALI'S POLY CLINIC.
EXHIIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/7/2013
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIIT P8. TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 2/8/2013
U/R.66 (2) OF RULES BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXHIIT P9. TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19/9/2013
ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO
GOVERRNMENT.
