Bombay High Court

MS ASHTANG MEDICALS AND GENERAL STORES THROUGH ITS PROP SUJIT D BANGALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH HONBLE MINISTER AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The suspension order is stayed until the stay application before the Minister is heard and decided.

Summary

The petitioner, Ashtang Medicals, had its licence for distributing medicines under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 suspended by the Assistant Commissioner on 1 September 2026. The petitioner filed an appeal and a stay application before the State Minister under Rule 66(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, but the appeal had not been heard. The petitioner argued that the 15‑day suspension period would lapse before the appeal could be considered, causing prejudice. The respondent State argued that the appeal should be heard in due course, but acknowledged the delay. The Court ordered that the suspension order be stayed until the pending stay application is heard by the Minister and disposed of the writ petition. The order was directed to be communicated to the concerned authority.

Issues considered

Whether a licence suspension order under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act can be stayed pending an appeal under Rule 66(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
Whether the delay in hearing the appeal infringes the petitioner's rights given the short suspension period.

Legislation cited

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 — s. Rule 66(2)

Subjects

licence suspension
Drugs and Cosmetics Act
stay of execution
administrative law
Rule 66(2)
appeal
high court
writ petition

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41541


                                                   1                          908.odt


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 12052 OF 2026
                      MS ASHTANG MEDICALS AND GENERAL STORES
                          THROUGH ITS PROP SUJIT D BANGALE
                                           VERSUS
                       THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                               ...
                            Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. P.F. Patni
                                 i/b. Mr. Patni Pranit Pramod
                       AGP for Respondent/s – State : Ms. Preeti Diggikar
                                              …

                                       CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
                                       DATE : 09th SEPTEMBER, 2026


              PER COURT :

              1.           Heard the Petitioner as well as the learned AGP.

              2.           The license of the Petitioner for carrying the business for

              distribution of medicines under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, has

              been suspended by order dated 01.09.2026, by the Assistant

              Commissioner (Drugs) and Licensing Authority, Food and Drugs

              Administration, Maharashtra State.

              3.           According to the Petitioner, after issuing the notice pointing

              out certain deficiencies to the Petitioner, the response of the Petitioner

              was called and after considering the response, the order dated

              01.09.2026, has been passed suspending the license of the Petitioner. It is
                                     2                         908.odt


submitted that although the Petitioner has filed an Appeal before the

Hon’ble Minister of Food and Drugs Administration, State of

Maharashtra, as provided under Rule 66 (2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics

Rules, 1945 (for short ‘the Rules’), the same has not been taken up for

hearing. It is submitted that the stay Application has not been heard. It is

the contention of the Petitioner that the stay Application should be

immediately heard considering the period for which the license has been

suspended. The over all period for suspension of license commences

from 02.09.2026 to 16.09.2026. Therefore, hearing of the Appeal after

the said period is over, is of no consequences.

4.           Learned AGP submits that considering the Appeal is already

filed by the Petitioner along with the stay Application, it may be heard by

the Competent Authority and decided in due course. Considering that

though the Petitioner has filed the Appeal immediately on 02.09.2026, on

the date of commencement of the period of suspension of license itself

but till date it has not been heard by the Minister, thereby causing

prejudice to the rights of the Petitioner. Although the period for

approaching the Authority under Rule 66 (2), is 90 days but the period for

suspension of license is only for a period of 15 days. Hence the

Appeal/stay needs to be considered immediately in aforementioned

circumstances.
                                       3                         908.odt


5.             Thus, the order of suspension of license dated 01.09.2026,

passed by the Assistant Commissioner Drugs, shall stand stayed till the

Application for stay which is pending before the Minister is heard and

decided.

6.             With the aforementioned observations, Writ Petition stands

disposed of.

7.             Learned AGP shall communicate this order immediately to

the concerned Authority.

8.             Parties to act upon the authenticated copy of this order.




                                       ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. )




SPC

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…