Madras High Court
Mohammed Khasim vs The Director Of Drugs Control on 24 June, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
1/19 WP Nos. 14956 & 22077 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24-06-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
WP Nos. 14956 & 22077 of 2025
WMP Nos. 16842, 16846, 24828, 24829, & 24830 of 2025
WP No. 14956 of 2025
Mohammed Khasim
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Director Of Drugs Control
Government of Tamil Nadu,
D.M.S. Building,
359, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai - 600 006.
2.The Assistant Director Of Drugs Control
Zone - III, D.M.S. Building,
359, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai - 600 006.
3.M.S. Govindarajan
4.R. Chitra
Respondent(s)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
2/19 WP Nos. 14956 & 22077 of 2025
PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the
impugned proceedings in Ref No.1464/ADDC/ZIII/2024 dated 04.03.2025 of
the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently, directing the 2nd
respondent to renew the drug licence of Petitioner's medical shop i.e. Shanthi
Medicals Shop at No. 98, Bharathi Salai, Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014 within
time stipulated fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.L.G.Sahadevan for
Mr.A.Ilayaperumal
For Respondent(s): Mr.E.Sundaram
Government Advocate
for R1 and R2
Mr.M.Sridhar
for R3 and R4
WP No. 22077 of 2025
Mohammed Khasim
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Director Of Drugs Control
Government of Tamil Nadu,
D.M.S. Building,
359, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai - 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
3/19 WP Nos. 14956 & 22077 of 2025
2.The Assistant Director Of Drugs Control
Zone - III, D.M.S. Building,
359, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai - 600 006.
3.The Drugs Inspector,
Mylapore Range,
Chennai.
4.M.S. Govindarajan
5.R. Chitra
Respondent(s)
PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the
impugned proceedings in Ref No.1464/ADDC/ZIII/2024 dated 10.06.2025 and
quash the same and consequently, directing the 3rd respondent to return all the
materials / medicines seized from the petitioner's medical shop i.e. Shanthi
Medicals shop at No.98 Bharathi Salai, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014 within
time stipulated fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.L.G.Sahadevan for
Mr.A.Ilayaperumal
For Respondent(s): Mr.E.Sundaram
Government Advocate
for R1 to R3
Mr.M.Sridhar
for R4 and R5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
4/19 WP Nos. 14956 & 22077 of 2025
ORDER
The issue involved in both these Writ Petitions are common and hence,
they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this common order.
2.The petitioner has challenged the proceedings of the 2nd respondent
dated 04.03.2025 and sought for a direction to the 2nd respondent to renew the
drug licence of the petitioner in order to enable the petitioner to run the medical
shop, in W.P.No.14956 of 2023.
3.The petitioner has questioned the impugned proceedings of the 2nd
respondent dated 10.06.2025 and sought for a consequential direction to the
Drugs Inspector to return of the materials/medicines seized from the medical
shop, in W.P.No.22077 of 2025.
4.The case of the petitioner is that he is running a medical shop with the
name and style of Shanthi Medicals for more than 20 years in the subject
property. The license was granted by the 2nd respondent on 14.01.2020, to run
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
5/19 WP Nos. 14956 & 22077 of 2025
the shop. The petitioner is basing his right under the Rental Agreement dated
02.08.2019. The petitioner was running the medical shop and there was a
dispute with the 3rd respondent in W.P.No.14956 of 2025 (herein after referred
to as “3rd respondent” in short) and the 3rd respondent gave a complaint to the
police. Ultimately, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.21 of 2024 for
alleged offence under Sections 420, 463, 464 and 645 of IPC. In the meantime,
attempt was made to illegally take over possession of the shop and the petitioner
filed a suit in O.S.No.3587 of 2022 before the learned XIX Assistant City Civil
Court seeking for the relief of permanent injunction not to evict the petitioner
unless and otherwise by due process of law. The 3rd and 4th respondents also
filed a suit in O.S.No.2364 of 2024 against the petitioner and one Baskaran
seeking for the relief of delivery of possession and for payment of damages.
5.The petitioner submitted the application dated 12.11.2024 to the 1st
respondent to renew and to extend the drug license. The petitioner also paid the
requisite fees through a Demand Draft dated 08.01.2025 in favour of the 2nd
respondent. The 1st respondent in spite of the receipt of the application failed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
6/19 WP Nos. 14956 & 22077 of 2025
take appropriate action and hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4066 of 2025
before this Court seeking for a direction to the 1st respondent to deal with the
application submitted by the petitioner and to take a decision. During the
pendency of this writ petition, the 2nd respondent through the impugned
communication dated 04.03.2025, rejected the application submitted by the
petitioner seeking for renewal/extension of the period of drug license.
Aggrieved by the same, W.P.No.14956 of 2025 has been filed before this Court.
6.When the above writ petition was pending, the 2nd respondent through
the impugned proceedings dated 10.06.2025 directed the Drugs Inspector,
Mylapore to inspect the premises on the ground that the petitioner is continuing
to run the medical shop without a license and also to take appropriate
enforcement action as per the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
and Rules therein. Pursuant to the same, an inspection was made and it is stated
that the medicines were seized and the shop was closed. Aggrieved by the same,
W.P.No.22077 of 2024 has been filed before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
7/19 WP Nos. 14956 & 22077 of 2025
7.The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The 2nd respondent
has taken a stand that the license issued in the name of the petitioner has expired
due to failure to pay the retention fees, within the prescribed period. A further
stand has been taken to the effect that there is a tenancy dispute between the
3rd respondent and the petitioner and therefore, the very possession of the
petitioner is in question. Apart from that the 2nd respondent has also stated that
the petitioner cannot run the shop after the expiry of the license and therefore,
further steps were taken to seize the medicines and to close the shop.
Accordingly, the 2nd respondent has sought for the dismissal of these writ
petitions.
8.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents.
9.The only issue that requires the consideration of this Court is as to
whether the petitioner is entitled for the renewal of drug license.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
8/19 WP Nos. 14956 & 22077 of 2025
10.The specific case of the petitioner in W.P.No.14956 of 2025 is that the
3rd and 4th respondents have executed a Rental Agreement dated 02.08.2019 in
favour of the petitioner and the petitioner has been recognized as a tenant in the
subject property. Based on the same, licence was also granted by the 2nd
respondent and the petitioner was running the medical shop. Thereafter, there
was a dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent which resulted in
two suits filed and which are pending. Hence, this tenancy dispute by itself
cannot be a ground for denying the renewal of license in favour of the
petitioner.
11.The learned counsel for the petitioner in order to substantiate his
submission relied upon Rule 64 and 65A of the Drugs Rules, 1945. The learned
counsel submitted that the petitioner has satisfied the requirements under Rule
64 of the Rules and the tenancy dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd
respondent cannot be a ground for the 2nd respondent to deny the renewal of
license by placing reliance upon Rule 65A of the Drug Rules, 1945.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
9/19 WP Nos. 14956 & 22077 of 2025
12.The learned counsel in order to substantiate his submission also relied
upon the judgement of this Court in K.Poruthammal and Others vs. Assistant
Director, Drugs Control and Others reported in 2008 4 MLJ 1151. The learned
counsel also relied upon the judgement of this Court in S.Hammed Fathimal
vs. The Assistant Director, Drugs Control, Tirunelveli Zone, Tirunelveli
reported in CDJ 2011 MHC 4518. One other judgement that was also relied
upon by the learned counsel is M/s.Sowndhari Pharmacy rep. by its Partner
V.Srinivasan vs. The Director of Drugs Control O/o Director of Drugs
Control & Another reported in CDJ 2017 MHC 6424.
13.The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon all the above
judgements submitted that this Court has consistently held that the tenancy
disputes between the landlord and tenant cannot be a ground to deny renewal of
license and that it is not only a pre-requisite under Rule 64 of the Drugs Rules.
14.Per contra, the 3rd respondent who appeared in person submitted that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
10/19 WP Nos. 14956 & 22077 of 2025
the earlier agreement was only with one Baskaran who was recognized as a
tenant. He was the one who was running the medical shop. However, during the
pandemic period, the petitioner who was working as a Salesman under the said
Baskaran managed to fabricate a tenancy agreement and also managed to get a
drug license. It was further submitted that a police complaint was given on the
ground that a forged document has been created by the petitioner and based on
the same, the drug license has been obtained from the authorities. The 3rd
respondent further submitted that the petitioner filed the quash petition before
this Court and the same was dismissed and a direction was given to complete
the investigation and to file a police report, within a period of twelve weeks.
The 3rd respondent submitted that he is not even recognizing the petitioner as a
tenant and according to him, the petitioner is a rank trespasser and therefore, the
suit was filed in O.S.No.2364 of 2024 for delivery of vacant possession and for
damages for illegal possession of the property. The 3rd respondent submitted
that the judgements that were relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner will not apply to the facts of the present case, since the petitioner is
not even a tenant and the case does not involve a landlord and tenant dispute.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
11/19 WP Nos. 14956 & 22077 of 2025
15.The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the official
respondents submitted that prior to the year 2020, the drug license always stood
in the name of Baskaran. To substantiate the same, the original records were
placed before this Court. The learned Government Advocate submitted that
there is a genuine dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and
therefore, the very nature of possession of the petitioner in the subject property
is in question and therefore, the request made by the petitioner seeking for
renewal of license was rejected. The learned Government Advocate further
submitted that apart from the dispute between the parties, the petitioner failed to
pay the retention fees within the prescribed period. Hence, the license had
already expired and the grace period also expired and the petitioner will not be
entitled for any renewal of drug licence.
16.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either
side and the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
12/19 WP Nos. 14956 & 22077 of 2025
17.The claim made by the petitioner is that he is a tenant in the subject
property by virtue of a Rental Agreement dated 02.08.2019. Based on the same,
license was granted by the 2nd respondent in the year 2020. The 3rd respondent
has denied the status of the petitioner as a tenant in the property and according
to the 3rd respondent, the petitioner is a rank trespasser who taking advantage
of the absence of the original tenant continued to do business in the medical
shop. In other words, the 3rd respondent has recognized only one Mr.Baskaran
as tenant and in fact, the drug license also stood in his name prior to the year
2020. In view of the same, a very status of the petitioner claiming himself to be
a tenant has been put to question. In the eyes of the 3rd respondent, the
petitioner is a rank trespasser.
8.The judgements that were relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner speaks about the dispute between the landlord and the tenant. In those
judgements, it has been held that for the purpose of renewal of licence, after
considering Rule 64 and 65A, it was held that conditions enumerated under
Rule 64 must be satisfied and that will suffice to renew the license. The
conditions stipulated under the Rule 65A only deals with additional information
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
13/19 WP Nos. 14956 & 22077 of 2025
for the purpose of verifying the correctness of the statements made by the
applicant at the time of applying for license and it relates only to the grant of
license originally. This Court has held in the above judgements that while
considering the renewal of license, it does not speak about the right of the
person with respect to the property but only with respect of the conduct of the
person.
9.In the first judgement in K.Poruthammal case, referred supra, there
was a dispute with regard to the very ownership of the property. The person
concerned was not claiming tenancy but she was claiming to be the owner of
the property by virtue of a Sale Deed executed in her favour. The litigation was
pending in that regard.
10.Insofar as the second judgement relied upon in the case of S.Hammed
Fathimal, referred supra, the proceedings initiated before the Rent Controller
was dismissed and it was also further confirmed in appeal. Therefore, this Court
took into consideration the fact that the petition for eviction under the Rent Act
was no more in existence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
14/19 WP Nos. 14956 & 22077 of 2025
11.In the third judgement that was relied upon in the case of
M/s.Sowndhari Pharmacy, referred supra, this Court had relied upon the above
two judgements and had pronounced the law on the issue. In this case also, what
was not in dispute is the relationship between the parties and the tenant in that
case had not produced the rental deed while applying for license.
12.None of the above three judgements will apply to the facts of the
present case. This is in view of the fact that the 3rd respondent denies the very
rental agreement that was relied upon by the petitioner and already a police case
is pending on the ground that the rental agreement is a fabricated and forged
document. Therefore, in the eyes of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner is only
seen as a trespasser.
13.Rule 64 of the Drug Rules cannot be stretched or expanded to such an
extent that even if a person is a trespasser in the property, he will be entitled for
the drug license. What is not a pre-requisite for renewal of license is that there
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
15/19 WP Nos. 14956 & 22077 of 2025
must be a subsisting rental agreement. This will arise only when there is a
landlord and tenant relationship and there is a dispute. If the status of the
petitioner is that a trespasser as per the specific case of the 3rd respondent and
the rental agreement that was relied upon by the petitioner is already being
tested by the police by giving it for an expert opinion, it will not be appropriate
for the authority to renew the drug license. In the absence of renewal of the drug
license, there is no question of allowing the petitioner to run the medical shop.
Therefore, the authorities have rightly seized the drugs and have not permitted
the petitioner to run the medical shop.
14.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if ultimately, the
rental agreement is proved to be a genuine document, during the interregnum
period, the petitioner would have suffered for no fault of his by not being
granted with the renewal of the drug license.
15.For the present, this Court is concerned about the status of the
petitioner as was stated by the landlord. The materials placed before this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
16/19 WP Nos. 14956 & 22077 of 2025
also shows that one Baskaran was the tenant and the drug license stood in his
name before the year 2020. Therefore, the petitioner who came in to the scene
thereafter is alleged to be a trespasser based on a forged and fabricated rental
agreement. If ultimately, the rental agreement is found to be a genuine
document, the petitioner can always seek for damages and at that point of time,
the petitioner can also seek for the renewal of the drug license. If on the other
hand, the rental agreement is found to be a forged and fabricated document, the
very possession of the property by the petitioner will become illegal and in such
a scenario, directing the authorities to renew the drug license will tantamount to
granting premium to illegality. Therefore, for the present, this Court does not
find any ground to interfere with the decision taken by the authorities not to
renew the license and to seize the drugs that were kept in the medical shop. The
petitioner also cannot run the medical shop without a license. The petitioner has
to necessarily wait for the result of the experts on the genuineness of the rental
agreement that has been relied upon by the petitioner. Depending upon the
result, the petitioner can always workout his remedy in the manner known to
law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
17/19 WP Nos. 14956 & 22077 of 2025
16.In the result, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted
by this Court and both the writ petitions stand dismissed. No Costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
24-06-2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
18/19 WP Nos. 14956 & 22077 of 2025
To
1.The Director Of Drugs Control
Government Of Tamil Nadu,, D.M.S.
Building, 359, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Assistant Director Of Drugs
Control
Zone – Iii, , D.M.S. Building, 359,
Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600
006.
3.The Drugs Inspector,
Mylapore Range,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
19/19 WP Nos. 14956 & 22077 of 2025
N.ANAND VENKATESH J.
ssr
WP Nos. 14956 & 22077 of 2025
24-06-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )