Micheal Zothankhuma, J.

Heard Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. A Zho, the learned counsel for the sole respondent.

2. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 8-4-2016 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 193(K)/2015 (Reported in (2016) 3 Gau LT 725) allowing the writ petition. The writ petitioner is now arrayed as the sole respondent in the present writ appeal but for convenience's sake, he is being referred to as the writ petitioner hereafter.

3. The writ petitioner having expired on 24-2-2016 was allowed to be substituted by his wife Smti. Bendangrenla vide order, dated 24-4-2017 passed in I.A. No. 109 (K)/2016. The facts of the case as may be required for disposal of the present appeal may be narrated at the outset.

4. The writ petitioner is a license holder for medicine wholesale/distributorship having registration DL/NL-376/377(M) and running business at Dimapur. Vide the impugned communication, dated 21-9-2015, the Assistant Drugs Controller, Dimapur asked the writ petitioner to submit detail invoice of purchase and sale of cough syrup containing codeine along with company's name of the product for the period April, 2014 to September, 2015 on or before 25-9-2015.

5. Since the writ petitioner failed to make any response, a show-cause notice, dated 28-9-2015 was issued, asking him to show-cause within a week, as to why action should not be taken against him for violating Section 18-B, punishable under Section 27(d) and section 22(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Act of 1940 in short) and violation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (Rules of 1945 in short), punishable under Section 28-A. It was further mentioned that the writ petitioner had violated the Circular, dated 17-9-2012 issued by the State Drugs Controlling Authority, Government of Nagaland with regard to purchase and sale of restricted drugs.

6. Against the show-cause notice, dated 28-9-2015, the writ petitioner submitted a letter, dated 5-10-2015 informing the Assistant Drug Controller, Dimapur that he had not received the letter, dated 21-9-2015 and that due to paucity to time, he could not collect all the records as it pertained to a period of over one year. He therefore, requested for extension of time for another one month.

7. The letter, dated 5-10-2015 of the writ petitioner was respondent to by the Chief Medical Officer, Dimapur through the Assistant Drug Controller Dimapur, by issuance of an order, dated 7-10-2015 whereby, 5 days time was given to him to furnish all the necessary documents of purchase and sale record/registers as per Rule 65 of the Rules of 1945, particularly under Rule 65(6), w.e.f. the date of issue of the order. It was further mentioned that failure to comply with the direction would invite closure/sealing of firm/shop and legal action taken under appropriate sections of the Act of 1940 and the Rules of 1945 without further notice. Aggrieved, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 193(K)/2015.

8. The writ petitioner in his writ petition contended that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (writ appellant Nos. 2 and 3) did not have the power or jurisdiction to issue the impugned orders, inasmuch as, under the Act of 1940, such powers are only vested with the Drug Inspector and not with any other official. Further, Rule 65(6) of the Rules of 1945 did not have any relevance to the case, inasmuch as, the same relates to production of record/registers on being demanded by the Drug Inspector duly appointed under the Act of 1940. Therefore, as no demand was made by the Drug Inspector, in the absence of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 being conferred the powers of a Drug Inspector, the impugned notices and order were unsustainable. The writ petitioner further denied the applicability of Section 18-B, 22(3), 27(d) and 28-A of the Act of 1940 since Section 18-B relates to maintenance of records and furnishing of information in terms of license issu