Bombay High Court
INDIRA IVF HOSPITAL LTD MEDICAL STORE THR ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY DHONDIRAM D BHARATIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner was not afforded the requisite time to approach the Competent Authority under Section 66(2) and therefore stayed the suspension order for two weeks.
Summary
The petitioner, Indira IVF Hospital Limited Medical Store, challenged the suspension of its license by the Assistant Commissioner, Drugs and License Authority under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The suspension order dated 28 August 2026 was served on the petitioner only on 31 August 2026, leaving merely one day before the suspension was to take effect on 1 September 2026. The petitioner argued that this did not provide the statutory 90‑day period to approach the Competent Authority under Section 66(2) of the Act. The Court found that the petitioner was not given sufficient time to file an appeal and consequently stayed the operation of the suspension order for two weeks. No view was expressed on the merits of the alleged irregularities, and the writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the suspension order was served with sufficient time to allow the petitioner to invoke the 90‑day appeal right under Section 66(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a stay of the suspension pending appeal.
Legislation cited
- Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — s. 66(2)
Subjects
- license suspension
- Drugs and Cosmetics Act
- Section 66(2)
- appeal period
- stay order
- medical store
- writ petition
- procedural fairness
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:39964
1 1-WP-11482-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 11482 OF 2026
Indira IVF Hospital Limited Medical Store Thr. Dondhiram Dattabuwa
Bharati
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
…
Mr.Vijay V. Deshmukh for the Petitioner.
Dr.Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, Addl. G.P. for the Respondent/State.
…
CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : 01.09.2026
PER COURT :
1. The Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the
Assistant Commissioner, Drugs and License Authority under the Food and
Drugs Administration Department, Chh. Sambhaji Nagar suspending the
lisence of the Medical Store in the Hospital run by the Petitioner, who is
the Director of the said Hospital. The order of suspension has been
passed invoking provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
2. It is the contention of the Petitioner that pursuant to the
inspection report, the order of suspension has been passed on 28 th
August, 2026. However, it is stated on affidavit by the Petitioner that the
said order has been received by the Petitioner or rather served on the
Petitioner on 31st August, 2026, and the effect of the order of suspension
is to take from 1st September, 2026, leaving leave sufficient time for the
Sunny Thote
2 1-WP-11482-2026.odt
Petitioner to approach the Competent Authority as provided under
Section 66(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Section 66(2)
provides period of 90 days to approach the Competent Authority against
the order of suspension. The prayer of the Petitioner is opposed on the
learned Addl. G.P. on the ground that there are serious lapses and
irregularities found in the inspection carried out by the Competent
Authority of the Medical Store attached to the Hospital of the Petitioner.
The other objection as regards the availability of alternate remedy is also
raised by the learned Addl. G.P..
3. After perusing the impugned order and hearing the
respective parties, in my view, sufficient time was not granted to the
Petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority. The Petitioner has stated
on affidavit that the order of suspension dated 28 th August 2026 was
served upon him on 31st August 2026, i.e. only one day prior to the date
on which the suspension order was to come into force. Thus, only for the
purpose of granting the Petitioner sufficient time to approach the
Competent Authority, as provided under the Act, the effect and operation
of the impugned order dated 28 th August 2026 passed by Respondent No.
3 shall remain stayed for a period two weeks from the date of this order.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any view about the
merits of the matter. All contentions of the respective parties, so far as
merits of the matter are kept open.
4. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is disposed off.
Sunny Thote
3 1-WP-11482-2026.odt
5. The parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.
The learned Addl. G.P. shall inform Respondent No. 3 about the order
passed by this Court in the open Court.
[ MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ]
Sunny Thote
Checking your session…