IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3027 of 2009(I) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- BIJU MATHEW AGED 34 YEARS,RESIDING AT PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, ULLANNOOR P.O. KULANADA, PATHANAMTHITTA,PIN-689503. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ SRI.ANOOP JOSEPH SRI.ABHILASH AKBAR SRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD SMT.SUMEY CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLLER & LICENSING AUTHORITY, SOUTH ZONE, KOLLAM. 3. DRUGS INSPECTOR (IB) OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLLER, KOLLAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 3027 OF 2009 (I) ==================== Dated this the 6th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P8. Petitioner held Ext.P1 drug licence in respect of his shop PMG Medicals. By Ext.P5, the licence was suspended for a period of three days. It would appear that the petitioner challenged that order before the 1st respondent and by Ext.P7, the 1st respondent granted stay of the said order. However, the appeal filed was rejected by Ext.P8. Ext.P8 order shows that no reasons whatsoever has been given and according to the petitioner the said order was passed without even hearing him. On considering Ext.P8 and also on hearing the argument on either sides, I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. When a statutory appeal under Rule 66(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 is filed, the Appellate Authority is expected to deal with the same and pass a reasoned order adverting to the contentions. A reading of Ext.P8 order shows that no reason whatsoever to justify rejection of the appeal has been stated. That apart, the petitioner also has not been heard. WPC 3027/09 :2 : 3. For these reasons, I quash Ext.P8 and direct the 1st respondent to reconsider the petitioner's appeal against Ext.P5, with notice to him and pass a speaking order in the matter within 8 weeks. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp