Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

ASHISH LIFE SCIENCE PVT LTDversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR MINISTRY OF FOOD AND DURG AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The impugned order is a final order that is void for lack of reasons and must be quashed, with the appeal restored for a fresh, reasoned decision.

Summary

The petitioner, Ashish Life Science Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated 28 September 2026 issued by the Minister, Food and Drugs Administration, Maharashtra State, which cancelled its licences effective 1 October 2026. The order, passed under Rule 85(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, was issued without recording any submissions or providing reasons. The High Court examined whether the order was a final one and whether a reasonless order could be sustained. It held that the order was a final, reasonless order and therefore void. Consequently, the Court quashed the order, restored the appeal to the State Government for a fresh, reasoned decision, stayed the licensing authority's cancellation order, and directed a temporary revival of the licences.

Issues considered

  • Whether the order dated 28 September 2026 is a final order requiring reasons under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
  • Whether an administrative order that is bereft of reasons can be sustained.
  • Whether the appeal should be restored for a fresh decision with a reasoned order.
  • Whether a stay should be granted on the licensing authority's cancellation order pending the appeal.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • licence cancellation
  • administrative law
  • reasoned order
  • Drugs and Cosmetics Rules
  • stay of execution
  • writ petition
  • High Court of Bombay
  • Maharashtra

Judgment

                                                                      20 WP-13148-26.DOC

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 13148 OF 2026

                   Ashish Life Science Pvt. Ltd.                            ..Petitioner

                           Versus

                   The State of Maharashtra & ors.                       …Respondents


                   Mr. Nilkhil Sakhardande, Senior Advocate, Mr. Mayur
                        Khandeparkar, Ms. Shubhra Swami, Mr. Sagar Shetty,
                        Mr. Ashish Venugopal, Ms. Meghna Vijan, i/b Sagar
                        Shetty, for the Petitioner.

                   Mr. P P Kakade, Addl. G. P., Mr. P V Nelson Rajan, AGP for
                         Respondents - State.


                                              CORAM :          N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                              DATE       :     05th OCTOBER 2026

SAINATH
SANJAY
                   Oral Order :-
BODKHE
Digitally signed
by SAINATH
SANJAY BODKHE
Date: 2026.10.06
17:39:32 +0530
                   1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

                   2.      The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 28 th

                   September, 2026 passed by the Food and Drug Administration,

                   Maharashtra State in an appeal under Rule 85(3) of the Drugs

                   and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (“the Rules, 1945”) against an order

                   dated 01st July 2026 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Drugs)

                   and Licensing Authority purportedly in exercise of the power

                   under Rule 85(2) of the Rules, 1945 thereby cancelling the

                   licences w.e.f. 01st October, 2026.

                   SAINATH, PA                           1/4
                                                 20 WP-13148-26.DOC

3.      The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the State

Government. As the cancellation of licences was to take effect

from 01st October, 2026 and the Appellate Authority had not

passed an order on the said appeal, the petitioner moved this

Court in WP/12909/2026. By an order dated 30 th September,

2026, the First Court posted the matter on 01 st October, 2026

directing that, instructions be obtained as to the decision in

regard to the said appeal.

4.      On 01st October, 2026, the First Court was informed that,

the appeal has already been decided. In view thereof, the said

petition was disposed with liberty to the petitioner to institute a

fresh proceedings.

5.      Mr. Sakhardande, the learned Senior Advocate for the

petitioner submits that, during the course of hearing of the said

writ petition, the petitioner was served with a copy of the final

order passed in the said appeal. The said order passed by the

Minister, Food and Drugs Administration, Maharashtra State,

does not record any submissions of the parties nor the grounds

raised by the petitioner – appellant, have been dealt with. The

impugned order, in fact, is bereft of reasons.

6.      Upon perusal of the said order, this Court was anxious to

ascertain whether the order is interim or final, as clause (4) of


SAINATH, PA                        2/4
                                                 20 WP-13148-26.DOC

the said order records that, the date and time of hearing of the

matter would be communicated in due course. Hence, the

learned AGP was directed to take instructions and the matter

came to be posted in the second session.

7.      Mr. Kakade, the learned AGP, on instructions, submits

that the impugned order is a final order. Even the First Court

was informed on behalf of the State that, the appeal was

decided.

8.      Evidently, the impugned order is sans reasons. It is in the

form of a mere record of proceedings. The Appellate Authority is

expected to deal with the grounds of challenge to the order

impugned before it and record independent reasons. Even when

the Appellate Authority decides to confirm the order passed by

the Authority in the first instance, the order must reflect due

application of mind.

9.      Even if some allowance is given on account of the fact

that, the impugned order is passed by an administrative

authority and not a judicial authority, yet, the impugned order

cannot be sustained as it singularly lacks reason.

10.     In view of the above, the petition deserves to be allowed.

11.     Hence, the following order :-




SAINATH, PA                         3/4
                                                    20 WP-13148-26.DOC

                                   ::ORDER::

              (i)     The Writ Petition stands allowed.

              (ii)    The impugned order dated 28 th September,

              2026, stands quashed and set aside.

              (iii)   The appeal stands restored to the file of

              the State Government for a fresh decision, in

              accordance with law.

              (iv)    The State Government shall hear the

              parties and pass a reasoned order dealing with

              the grounds on which the licences were cancelled

              by the Licensing Authority and the grounds of

              challenge thereto.

              (v)     In the meanwhile, the order passed by the

              Licensing Authority dated 01st July, 2026 stands

              stayed and the licences stand revived till the final

              decision of the appeal.

              (vi)    In the event, in the appeal an adverse

              order is passed against the petitioner, the stay to

              the order passed by the Licensing Authority

              dated 01st July, 2026 shall continue to operate for

              a further period of one week thereafter.


                                              [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
SAINATH, PA                             4/4


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.