- (1.) S. D. Agarwala, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 26th June, 1989 by which the petitioner's drugs license has been cancelled is manifestly erroneous as it does not contain the reasons why the license has been cancelled as required by Rule 66, sub-clause (1) of the Drugs and Casmetics Rules, 1945 (Hereinafter referred to as the Rule ). The Rule reads as under : 66. Cancellation and suspension of licence.- The licensing authority may, after giving the licensee an opportunity to show cause why such an order should not be passed, by an order should not be passed, by an order in writing stating reasons therefore, cancel a licence issued under this part or suspend it for such period as he thinks fit either wholly or in respect of some of the substances to which it relates, if in his opinion, the licensee has failed to comply with any of the conditions of the licence or with any provision of the Act or Rules thereunder : Provided that On a reading of the above mentioned sub-clause (1) of Rule 66, it is clear that the licensing authority can cancel a Licence only by an order in writing stating reasons therefor,
(3.) WE have examined tie order, we find that no reasons has been given before cancelling the petitioner's drug licence. In the circumstances, the conten tion of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, The order dated 26th June. 1989 is clearly illegal and cannot be sustained. In the result, the petition is allowed, The order dated 26th June, 1989 is quashed, it is made clear that u will be open to the authorities to pass reasoned order after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause. A copy of this order may be given to learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within three days, Petition allowed. .;