@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The appellant is engaged in the business of manufacturing ayurvedic medicines. He and his brother Vinay Kumar Singh are the proprietors of
M/s Vishwanath Indian Herb Products. They obtained a licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for manufacturing ayurvedic medicines
in Form No. 25D. On 24-3-1995, they applied to the Commissioner of Excise for a licence in Form L-1 under the Medicinal and Toilet
Preparation (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 and the Rules made thereunder for manufacturing medicinal preparations containing alcohol. This
application was rejected by the Commissioner on the ground that the manufacturers of ayurvedic medicines in the districts of Saran and Vaishali
have not been manufacturing medicinal preparations containing alcohol according to their installed capacity. It was further observed by the
Commissioner in his order that non-utilisation by the licence-holders of their installed capacity indicated that there was no requirement for such
medicinal preparations. This order was challenged by the appellant by filing an appeal to the State Government. It was dismissed.
4. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court challenging the orders passed by the State Government and the Commissioner of
Excise. The High Court held that merely because a manufacturer of medicines makes a defects-free application for grant of licence under the
Excise Act and the Rules, his application need not be granted as the licensing authority has also to take into consideration the object of the statute,
nature of the products etc. Taking this view, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The observation made by it that when the Commissioner
for Excise decides to grant licences to others, the case of the appellant should also be considered is really of no avail.
5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Commissioner of Excise rejected the appellant''s application on a totally
extraneous consideration. He submitted that the application of the appellant should have been decided on its own merits and could not have been
rejected on the ground that other manufacturers in the districts of Saran and Vaishali were not manufacturing ayurvedic preparations containing
alcohol to their full-installed capacity.
6. In our opinion, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant deserves to be accepted. The application made by the appellant was required to
be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. What the authority was required to consider was whether the requirements of law were
complied with or not by the appellant. Since the application of the appellant was rejected by the Commissioner on an extraneous consideration, the
order passed by him deserved to be set aside. The High Court was wrong in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
7. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and also the orders passed by the State
Government and the Commissioner of Excise and direct him to consider the application of the appellant afresh and decide the same on its own
merits and in accordance with law.