Tripura High Court
Manika Debnath vs The State Of Tripura on 4 August, 2025
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.22 of 2024
Manika Debnath, wife of Sri Dipankar Debnath, resident of Noagaon,
Krishnanagar, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799006.
.........Appellant(s);
Versus
1. The State of Tripura, (to be represented by) the Secretary, Health and
Family Welfare Department, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat
Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799010;
2. The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government
of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West
Tripura, Pin-799010;
3. The Drugs Controller, Govt. of Tripura, Office of the Drugs
Controller, Pandit Nehru Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura,
Pin-799006;
4. The Deputy Drugs Controller, Govt. of Tripura, Office of the Deputy
Drugs Controller, Pandit Nehru Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West
Tripura, Pin-799006;
.........Respondent(s);
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Dipjyoti Paul, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
ORDER
04/08/2025
This writ appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of
the learned Single Judge refusing to set aside an order dated 21.02.2023 of
the Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of
Tripura, and refusing to direct the respondents to grant restricted license in
Form 20A & 21A in favour of the appellant under the Drugs and Cosmetics
Rules, 1945.
2. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order held that
under Rule 62A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945, there is a discretion
conferred on the licensing authority to take into account the number of
licenses granted in the locality during the year immediately preceding, and
in the reports submitted by the Drug Licensing Authority, it is noted that
there are 10(ten) nos. of retail licensed medicine shops in Form - 20 & 21
within four km radius of the proposed shop, and the committee had also
opined that there is no requirement or merit to issue a restricted license in
the said area. The licensing authority on 21.09.2022 turned down the request
of the appellant and this was confirmed by the appellate authority. Both the
primary authority as well as the appellate authority have taken into account
the fact that the area where the appellant wanted to set up shop was well
connected and there were sufficient retail medicine shops available in the
surrounding area.
3. Though the counsel for the appellant sought to contend that the
appellant had a right to do business under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India, and that this fundamental right cannot in any way be
interfered with by the respondents, Clause(6) of Article - 19 specifically
states that the State is not prevented from imposing reasonable restrictions
on the exercise of the right conferred under Article 19(1)(g).
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that
the discretion vested in the licensing authority has been properly exercised
keeping in mind the existence of a number of other shops with licenses in
the area in question.
5. We, therefore, do not find any error in the judgment of the
learned Single Judge warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction.
6. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA, J) (M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)
Munna MUNNA SAHA Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA
Date: 2025.08.05 15:48:36 +05'30'
