In an appeal filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court to challenge an order dated 31-03-2025 whereby the petition filed by the appellant regarding the suspension and cancellation of his drug license was dismissed, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf refused to interfere with the impugned order and held that the appellant had an alternative remedy to appeal before the State Government.
By the impugned order, the Single Judge had noticed that the appellant had an alternative remedy of appeal in accordance with Rule 66(2) of the Drug and Cosmetic Rules, 1945 whereby he could file an appeal before the State Government.
The appellant was a distributor of ‘Coldrif’ cold syrup after the consumption of which, 30 children had died. A raid was conducted at his premises on 02-10-2025 where a stock of the said medicine was found and the shop of the appellant was thereafter sealed. Two show cause notices were also issued for the appellant to give reasons as to why his license should not be cancelled.
The appellant filed a reply asking for time to respond since his documents were lying sealed in the said shop. The Single Judge noticed the provisions of the Drug and Cosmetic Rules and refused to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the appellant.
The Court found the subject case to be the most shocking one in medical history and opined that the appellant had an efficacious alternative remedy to appeal before the State while noting that the remedy under Article 226 is not an absolute but a discretionary remedy.
The Court agreed with the view taken by the Single Judge and held that if an appeal is filed before the State Government, the State would have to decide the appeal after considering all the facts and circumstances.
Thus, the appeal was dismissed.
Appearances:
For Appellant – Shree Pal Jain, Sahil Billa
For Respondents – Anubhav Jain
