← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/1846/2015dismissedrule discharged

M/S Unijules Life Sciences Ltd., Nagpur Through Its General Manager v. Joint Director, Nagpur Division, Food And Drugs Administration And Another

2015-12-14Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice P.B. Varale2 pages

WP1846-15 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1846/2015 (M/S UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LIMITED, NAGPUR VERSUS JT.DIRECTOR, NAGPUR DIVISION, FOOD AND DRUGS ADMINISTRATION, NAGPUR & ANOTHER) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri G.G. Modak, counsel for the petitioner.

Mrs.B.H. Dangre, G.P. for the R-1.

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.

DATE : DECEMBER 14 , 2015.

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the respondent no.1, dated 01.03.2014 cancelling the license granted to the petitioner under Rule 85 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The petitioner also challenges the order of the respondent no.2-Directorate of Health Services, Madhya Pradesh, dated 30.10.2014, disqualifying the petitioner from manufacturing Theolin-E Syrup for a period of five years.

It would not be proper for this Court to entertain the writ petition against the respondent no.2, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The petitioner is free to challenge the order of the respondent no.2 before an appropriate forum in Madhya Pradesh. As regards the prayer made in prayer clause (a), the petitioner is free to avail the alternate remedy provided under Rule 85(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. In fact, the impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 clearly mentions about the existence of the alternate remedy and the petitioner ought to have availed the said remedy in stead of filing the writ petition.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

WP1846-15 The points raised in the petition are kept open. JUDGE JUDGE APTE