Rule 66 requires a show-cause opportunity before suspending a drug licence.

Viva Pharma, a pharmaceutical distributor based in Belagavi, challenged a show-cause notice-cum-suspension order dated 18 September 2026, issued under Rule 66 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which suspended its drug licences.

The allegation was that Viva Pharma procured Zavicefta Injection through the authorised supply channel but sold it to entities to which it was not entitled to sell.

The Registry objected that the petition should be presented before the Dharwad Bench because the petitioner carried on business in Belagavi.

The petitioner submitted that it had appealed under Rule 66(2) to the State Government appellate authority in Bengaluru, but the appeal had not been entertained.

The petitioner had also filed a reply to the impugned notice.

Whether a licensing authority may suspend a drug licence through a show-cause notice-cum-suspension order without first giving the licensee an opportunity to show cause, as required by Rule 66(1).

Whether the Registry’s objection that the petition should be presented before the Dharwad Bench prevented the Court from considering the petition.

Rule 66(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 permits the licensing authority to suspend or cancel a licence for specified non-compliance, but requires that the licensee first be given an opportunity to show cause and that the authority state its reasons in writing.

Rule 66(2) provides for an appeal to the State Government against an order of suspension or cancellation within three months.

The Court cited no precedent.

The Court held that Rule 66(1) requires an opportunity to respond before an order suspending or cancelling a licence is passed.

The impugned instrument both notified the petitioner of the allegations and immediately suspended its licences; the Court found that this combined action was contrary to the Rule.

It did not decide the merits of the allegations against the petitioner.

The Court noted the Registry’s territorial objection and the petitioner’s submission concerning the Bengaluru appellate authority, but did not expressly determine the objection.

It permitted the petitioner to file an additional reply by 1 October 2026, after which the authorities were to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Pending further action, the petitioner was permitted to carry on its business in accordance with law; the authorities remained free to take further lawful steps, and the petitioner was directed to cooperate.

The writ petition was disposed of on those terms.