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
- Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 — s. Rule 85(2), Rule 85(3)
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
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.