Sakur Khan vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Pankaj Purohit, J

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the order dated 09.05.2026, annexure no.7 to the writ petition, passed by respondent no.3-Deputy Drug Controller, DLAKM, Uttarakhand, whereby the drug license bearing No.20-109864 and 21- 109865 issued in favour of M/s S.K. Medical Store under The Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, was cancelled with immediate effect.

The sole argument which has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not provided an opportunity of hearing and the drug license has been cancelled without considering the reply sent by the petitioner to notice dated 28.04.2026, annexure no.4 to the writ petition.

In order to substantiate his submission learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the show cause notice was issued on 28.04.2026, annexure no.4 to the writ petition, by respondent no.3 whereby the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the aforesaid license issued in his name be not cancelled and he has been given time to show cause within a period of 7 days with clear stipulation in the notice itself that written reply to the notice must reach to the office of respondent no.3 within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice.

The notice was received to the petitioner on 02.05.2026 and he has submitted a reply, annexure no.5 to the writ petition, by a registered post to respondent no.3 on 04.05.2026, which is reflected from the receipt of the postal department annexed as annexure no.6 to the writ petition.

The said notice reached in the office of respondent no.3 on 07.05.2026 at 17:36:55 hours. The said delivery is reflected from the tracking report which is annexed at page no.45 of the writ petition.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the notice itself when the notice was received to the petitioner on 02.05.2026, the reply should have been reached to the office of respondent no.3 by 09.05.2026 and according to delivery report the said reply reached to the office of respondent no.3 on 07.05.2026.

Thus he submits that the mention that no reply has been submitted by the petitioner in the impugned order is totally incorrect and bereft of any merit and therefore he submits that he has not been given fair opportunity and as his reply has not been considered by respondent no.3 before passing impugned order.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that there is an alternative remedy of filing appeal under Rule 66 of The Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, therefore the petitioner has got remedy to challenge the said order before the Appellate Authority.

Having considered the rival submission of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court is of the view that in this case where it is ex facie clear that the reply dated 28.04.2026 sent by the petitioner to the notice has not been considered though it reached to the office of respondent no.3 on 07.05.2026 at 17:36:55 hours; there is flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. The alternate remedy cannot become a bar for maintaining the present writ petition.

Accordingly writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 09.05.2026, annexure no.7 to the writ petition, is hereby set aside. The respondent no.3 is directed to pass a fresh order after considering the reply dated 24.04.2026 submitted by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law.