CWP-31674-2019 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-31674-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.07.2026 Pardeep Kumar ….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate, and Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner, by way of instant writ petition, as cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 30.10.2018 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Zonal Licensing Authority- respondent No.3, vide which, the Retail Sale Drugs Licences No.122247- NB and 122248-B, were cancelled with immediate effect. Further, an order dated 29.08.2019 (Annexure P-7), is put to challenge, whereby, statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner against the abovesaid order has also been dismissed. 2. In nutshell, the undisputed facts of the case, leading the parties to the current stage, are that shop/sale premises of the petitioner was inspected jointly by the Drugs Control Officer, Moga-I, and Drugs Control Officer, Moga-II, on 24.09.2018. Since certain irregularities on the part of the petitioner were surfaced, he was served with a show cause notice dated 12.10.2018 (Annexure P-4), embodying the hereinafter extracted contraventions of provisions of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1910, and rules made thereunder:- “(1) That Sh. Pardeep Kumar prop. of the firm was present as incharge of the firm and qualified person (Sh. Rupinder Singh Regd. No.18289) of your firm was absent at the time of inspection. AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.30 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-31674-2019 (O&M) -2- (2) That you did not show the purchase bills of 02 (Two) types of allopathic drugs which were seized in Form 16. Therefore, you have violated Rule 65(4)(4) & 65(6) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945. You are asked to submit certified copies of purchase record along with corresponding sales record for drugs seize on Form 16.” 3. In response, the petitioner submitted a reply dated 25.10.2017 (Annexure P-5), stating that at the time of inspection, the authorized/qualified person, namely Rupinder Singh, was not present, as he went to Primary Subsidiary Health Centre, Ghal Kalan, for his check up. As regards the medicines mentioned in the show cause notice, the certified bills were annexed therewith, to indicate the valid purchase of medicines. Not only that, even photocopies of the bills and the OPD slip issued by the Health Centre, are also appended with the instant writ petition. Thereupon, the Zonal Licensing Authority, Ferozepur Zone, upon consideration of the reply, cancelled the licences of the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 30.10.2018 (Annexure P-6). 4. A perusal of the impugned order unequivocally indicates that the same was passed in the backdrop of the irregularities/illegalities committed by the petitioner on earlier occasions. However, it miserably failed to return any finding as regards the insufficiency of reasons assigned by the petitioner in his reply. Though, the authority concerned has passed a detailed order, it only speaks about the past misconducts. In essence, the fate of the petitioner has been sealed in one line:- “A show cause notice was served upon you by vide this office letter No.573-574 dated 12-10-2018 for contravening Rules 65(4)(4) and 65(6) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945. A reply has been received in this office through Drugs Control Officer Moga I vide letter No.179 Dated 24-03-2017 against the aforesaid notice which has been considered by the undersigned and found to be unsatisfactory.” 5. It is a settled proposition of law that every order must be supported by reasons, as they constitute a pivotal nexus between the facts AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.30 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-31674-2019 (O&M) -3- and the conclusion arrived at. Even the quasi judicial authorities are under obligation to accompany their orders with reasons, which not only ensure transparency but also facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Forums/Courts. In the absence of cogent reasons, every order is rendered indefensible, as is the position in the matter at hand. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its decision in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, 2010 (9) SCC 496, in no uncertain terms, reinforces the vitality of existence of reasons, in support of the orders. It has been held that in Indian set up, there exists a well settled judicial trend mandating that reasons be assigned to every order, even in administrative decisions, particularly, when such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. Further, reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi- judicial and even by administrative bodies:- “15. The necessity of giving reason by a body or authority in support of its decision came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. Initially this Court recognized a sort of demarcation between administrative orders and quasi-judicial orders but with the passage of time the distinction between the two got blurred and thinned out and virtually reached a vanishing point in the judgment of this Court in A.K. Kraipak and others vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1970 SC 150. 17. The expression ‘speaking order’ was first coined by Lord Chancellor Earl Cairns in a rather strange context. The Lord Chancellor, while explaining the ambit of Writ of Certiorari, referred to orders with errors on the face of the record and pointed out that an order with errors on its face, is a speaking order. (See 1878-97 Vol. 4 Appeal Cases 30 at 40 of the report). 51. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds: AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.30 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-31674-2019 (O&M) -4- a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants’ faith in the justice delivery system. j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.30 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-31674-2019 (O&M) -5- l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or ‘rubber-stamp reasons’ is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737). n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, “adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions”. o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “Due Process.” 7. Likewise, the Appellate Authority has also failed to factor in the abovenoted crucial aspect of the matter, and dismissed the appeal, while proceeding on the same analogy of previous misconduct/irregularities committed by the petitioner. 8. This Court is reminded to point out that previous misconduct/irregularities allegedly committed by the petitioner might have significant relevance while assessing the quantum of punishment, but the authorities are under obligation to categorically record that the said irregularities have already been established, on the basis of the concrete evidence. Apparently, both the authorities failed to meet out the above discussed vital requirement of law. Thus, the impugned orders do AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.30 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-31674-2019 (O&M) -6- not withstand the test of judicial scrutiny, on this score also. 9. In the wake of the position sketched out above, both the impugned orders are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Zonal Licensing Authority, Ferozepur Zone-respondent No.3, with a direction to re-consider the entire issue, and pass orders afresh, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Further, since the licences of the petitioner were cancelled way back in the year 2018, the Licensing Authority concerned shall take a conclusive decision in the matter, within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE 28.07.2026 Ak Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.30 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document