Arun Kumar Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13589 of 2019 ====================================================== 1.

Arun Kumar Gupta (Male, aged 50 years), S/o Shyamdeo Prasad Gupta, R/o Mandir, Shokhara-1, Ward 6, Sograha, Post- Barauni, Begusarai. 2.

Shrawan Kumar Dudhani (Male, aged 51 years) S/o Jagannath Dudhani, R/o Shokhara-02, Ward-08, behind U.B.I. Post- Barauni, Sograha, DisttBegusarai. 3.

Awdhesh Kumar Gupta (Male, aged 57 years) S/o Shyamdeo Prasad Gupta, Village- Shokhara, Ward-6, Post- Barauni, Sograha, Distt- Begusarai. ... ... Petitioners

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Health Department, Vikas Bhawan, Patna.

2.

The State Drugs Controller, Bihar, Department of Health services, 4th floor, Vikas Bhawan, Patna.

3.

The Drug Inspector, Begusarai-02, District- Begusarai. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms.Mayuri, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Chitranjan Sinha (PAAG2) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 22-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

This writ application is not fit to be entertained as at the outset this court finds that these petitioners claimed themselves to be the employees of one M/s Hindustan Medicine Private Limited, Barauni whose manufacturing of drugs, distribution and sale licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules framed thereunder has been cancelled. Admittedly it is the M/s Hindustan Medicine Private

Patna High Court CWJC No.13589 of 2019(2) dt.22-07-2019 2/2 Limited, Barauni, which is a licensee. Against the order cancelling the licence, the licensee has been given a right to appeal under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 66 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The petitioners have not even stated in the writ application as to whether the licensee has preferred any appeal against the impugned order. The licensee has not been joined either as petitioner or even as respondent in the writ application.

This court finds no reason to entertain this writ application at the instance of the petitioners who claimed themselves the employees of the said Company. The writ application is, thus, dismissed in limine. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/- U