SANDEEP SINGH MALIK vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — CWP/10932/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --ALLOWED on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 10-Apr-2026

CNR: PHHC010588322026

e-Filing Number

07-04-2026

Filing Number

CWP/20948/2026

Filing Date

07-Apr-2026

Registration No

CWP/10932/2026

Registration Date

08-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Coram

Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Category

63.13 - MISC. HARYANA ( 739 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 12-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SANDEEP SINGH MALIK

    Adv. PRADEEP DUHAN

  2. 2.State of Haryana and others

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

  2. 2.State of Haryana and others

  3. 3.State Drugs Controller

  4. 4.Senior Drugs Control Authority cum Licensing Authority

  5. 5.Drugs Controller Officer Hisar II

  6. 6.Station House Officer

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Jagmohan BansalView PDF

    Case Summary The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition of pharmacist Sandeep Singh Malik, quashing the sealing of his pharmacy shop. The court held that Section 22 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 grants authorities power only to search premises and seize documents/materials as evidence—not to seal the premises itself. Since no contraband MTP kits were recovered from the shop, sealing it exceeded the authorities' jurisdiction and violated the petitioner's constitutional rights to business and property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/10932/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition of pharmacist Sandeep Singh Malik, quashing the sealing of his pharmacy shop. The court held that Section 22 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 grants authorities power only to search premises and seize documents/materials as evidence—not to seal the premises itself. Since no contraband MTP kits were recovered from the shop, sealing it exceeded the authorities' jurisdiction and violated the petitioner's constitutional rights to business and property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case