IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 1203 OF 2009 DECIDED ON : 27.01.2009 M/S Bharat Medical Store ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. S. K. Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner-a medical store in Kurali, District Mohali, is aggrieved at the orders dated 18.09.2008 (Annexure P-7) passed by the State Drugs Controlling and Licensing Authority, whereby its drug license has been cancelled, as well as, the order dated 27.11.2008 (Annexure P-10), whereby statutory appeal preferred by it has been dismissed by the first- respondent. Notice of motion. Mr. G. S. Attariwala, Additional AG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the statutory appeal under Rule 66 (2) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945, has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority by way of a cryptic order and without assigning any reason. C.W.P NO. 1203 OF 2009 -2- Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, I am of the considered view that this writ petition deserves to succeed to the extent that the appellate order, referred to above, cannot sustain in law. The Secretary, Health and Welfare Department-cum-Appellate Authority has taken notice of various rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties and has thereafter dismissed the appeal in the following terms : “I have examined the record on the file and have carefully heard the arguments of both and have come to the conclusion that the Appellant firm committed grave illegalities and contravened the provisions of Drugs Act and Rules and have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal”. The appeal being of statutory character, the Appellate Authority was obligated to assign reasons while dismissing the same. It is inherent and integral part of the principle of natural justice that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner ought to have been met by the Appellate Authority. The absence of reasons has put this Court also to a disadvantage in finding out as to what prevailed in the mind of the Appellate Authority while rejecting the appeal. C.W.P NO. 1203 OF 2009 -3- Consequently and without expressing any view on merits of the petitioner's claim, the writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned order dated 27.11.2008 (Annexure P-10) is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority to decide the same afresh, in accordance with law. The appeal shall be decided at the earliest but not later than two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, till then the petitioner's license shall not be restored. JANUARY 27, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE