IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13488 of 2008 M/S JAMIL MEDICAL HALL through its proprietor Md. S.M. Fazal son of Md. Jamil,R/O at Hospital More Bazar Road, Jehanabad,District- Jehanabad. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Appellate Authority, Health Minister, New Secretariat, Bihar,Patna. 3. The State Drugs Controller, Drugs Control Administration, Bihar,Patna. 4. The Drugs Inspector,Jehanabad. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Shankar Das. For the State : Mr. Anil Kr. Jha,G.A.2 - - --- 3 4.12.2008 Petitioner is a retail licensee under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1945, and the Rules framed thereunder and place of business is in the town of Jehanabad. His premises were inspected by the Probationary IAS Officer with the alleged assistance of Drug Inspector, Jehanabad. Pursuant to inspection, an inspection report was drawn up, which appears to have been forwarded not to the Regional Licensing Authority, who had issued the licences to the petitioner but to the State Drug Controller, who has now been vested with all powers of licencing authoprity for the entire State of Bihar. The State Drug Controller exercised the power of licensing authority and then issued a show cause to the petitioner as to why for alleged contravention of provisions of the Act and Rules, his licence be not cancelled. Petitioner filed his show cause. He responded to the said show cause, so filed. State Drug Controller passed the impugned order, which was communicated to the petitioner under letter dated 7.4.2008, ordering that the show ,as filed by the petitioner, was unsatisfactory and as such his licences being licence nos. 27/90 and 27A/90 were cancelled. 2 Petitioner had a right of statutory appeal to the State. He filed the appeal before the State, which was heard as Appeal No.1/08 by the Ministry of Health, as an appellate authority and was dismissed summarily. Petitioner challenges both these orders. A counter affidavit has been filed. Heard the parties and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to both the orders of the State Drug Controller and the order of the Minister and submits that a bare reference to the orders would show that the two orders are totally non speaking orders. In the counter affidavit, it is stated with reference to the said order that both the orders have considered the entire matter and passed the impugned order. Both submissions of both counsels are correct.The order does disclose that both the licensing authority and the appellate authority applied their minds when they noted the various allegations and contentions.Thus, the State counsel is correct .For an order to be a speaking order there has to be reason disclosed. As has been held repeatedly by the Courts, reasons are the link between the facts founded and the decision taken. Regrettably , in neither of the orders are there any facts founded ,much less not in support of the decision.Both the orders noted the contentions and allegation and conclusion i.e. the order of cancellation. It may be pointed out that licence is a very valuable peace of paper. It gives right to carry on a business. It should not be so 3 casually dealt with and specially by such an authority as the State Drugs Controller. I may only observe that when the licences were granted by the Regional Licensing Authority, who was available ,why the matter was reported straight to the State Drugs Controller is not known and ordinarily should not be resorted to. However,as both the orders are non speaking orders and non speaking orders are held to be nonest orders, the two orders are set aside. The licensing authority shall have liberty to re-initiate the proceeding and pass an appropriate order after hearing the petitioner. With the above observation and direction , the writ petition stands disposed of. SINGH (Navaniti Pd. Singh, J.)