The Bombay High Court recently emphasized that appellate authorities should not allow cases to linger indefinitely, as such prolonged inaction can potentially impact the fundamental rights of the parties involved.

A division bench comprising Justices GS Kulkarni and Firdosh Pooniwalla further emphasized that the appellate process should not transform into a situation where the operation (legal proceedings) is deemed successful, but the case remains dormant or unresolved, highlighting the need for timely and effective resolution.

The Court stated that the concept of an "operation being successful but the patient dead" should not apply. It underscored that petitioners have a legitimate right to be informed about the status of their challenges, including interim or final reliefs sought in their appeals. The Court emphasized that such transparency is crucial to prevent petitioners from enduring the consequences of a suspension order without clarity on the progress of their cases.

In this context, the Court was addressing petitions filed by certain chemist shop owners (petitioners). These petitioners raised concerns that their appeals, challenging the suspension of their licenses, were not being scheduled for hearings before the appellate authority.

Additionally, the petitioners brought to the Court's attention that no interim orders had been issued regarding their stay applications, adding another layer of concern to the delay and lack of progress in addressing the suspension of their licenses.

The primary petitioner, Apna Chemist, had its license suspended on October 3 of the preceding year. The suspension was designated for a specific period, from January 8, 2024, to January 17, 2024. Subsequently, on October 31, 2023, Apna Chemist filed an appeal contesting this suspension order.

Following the filing of the appeal on October 31, 2023, neither was it scheduled for a hearing nor did the court issue any interim order regarding the stay application. Other chemist owners found themselves in a comparable predicament, prompting the aggrieved petitioners to seek redress from the High Court.

In response to the grievances raised by the chemist shop owners, the High Court issued a directive to the appellate authority operating under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The court mandated the authority to adjudicate on the appeals filed by the chemist shop owners within a stipulated timeframe of eight weeks. Additionally, the court implemented a stay on the enforcement of the suspension orders until the final disposition of the appeals or related stay applications.

The Court expressed the view that the failure of the appellate authority to issue a suitable order would directly impact the rights of the chemist shop owners to conduct their trade. The timely resolution of the appeals was deemed crucial to safeguard and uphold the rights of these business owners.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the appellate authority was obligated to offer effective remedies in accordance with its statutory powers. This underscored the expectation that the authority should utilize its legal mandate to provide redress and resolution in a manner that aligns with established legal principles and statutory provisions.

The bench made a noteworthy observation, stating that the appellate authority should not disregard its substantial responsibility given the powers it holds in adjudicating statutory appeals. The court underscored that once a remedy is prescribed by law, it is imperative that it is not only provided but is also effective in both its literal and practical sense. The bench emphasized that the appellate authority, while handling statutory appeals, must be fully cognizant of the potential repercussions and implications of its decisions.

Taking into account these considerations, the High Court concluded the proceedings by instructing the appellate authority to promptly and efficiently reach decisions on the pending appeals. This directive aimed to ensure a timely resolution of the issues raised by the chemist shop owners, aligning with the principles of justice and fairness.

Advocates Atal Bihari Dubey, Arvind Tiwari, Rahul Mishra and Rushikesh S. Kekane appeared for the chemists (petitioners).

Additional government pleaders AI Patel and MS Bane appeared for the respondent-authorities.