( 1 ) THE petitioner, who has a wholesale and retail distribution shop of drugs, cosmetics and cutlery at Malwa Mill Chouraha in the name and style of Dilip Medical Stores, has filed this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the matter of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 to quash the order of suspension of the petitioner's license, dated 1-3-83 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure-H) as also the order dated 5-8-83 passed by respondent No. 2 Annexure-K.

( 2 ) THE short facts giving rise to this petition, which are not in dispute may be stated, in brief, thus : The petitioner was granted license in Forms Nos. 20, 20b, 21 and 21-B bearing No. 402 from the respondent No. 1 under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 framed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. On 7-8-82 at about 1 p. m. the Drug Inspectors came to the shop of the petitioner. But the petitioner at that time was not present in his shop though his brother Dilip Singh was present. The two Inspectors prepared an inspection note with regard to some irregularities found by them as per Annexure-E as follows : "the proprietor and the qualified salesman Shri Jamit Singh not available at the shop during inspection. Shri Dilip is looking after sales and Drugs which are to be sold by a qualified salesman. Inspection book in form No. 35 not made available for recording inspection note. " on this basis the respondent No. 1 on 10-11-82 (Annexure-F) served a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why action should not be taken against him for violating the terms of the license. The petitioner by his reply Annexure-G dated 20-11-82 pointed out that the qualified person had gone out of the shop just for a few minutes during the inspection. However, no scheduled drug was sold during the absence of the qualified person, as the shop also deals in other cutlery/cosmetics items which are sold in his absence by the other members employed in the shop. Regarding form No. 35 he submitted that it was in the custody of the proprietor who was not available at the time of inspection and hence it was not shown to the Inspector.

( 3 ) THE respondent No. 1 by his order Annexure-H dated 1-3-83 has made reference to violation of Rr. 65 (15) (c) (ii), 65 (16), 65 (7) of the said Rules, which in fact are not found in the report of the Inspectors. The respondent No. 1 by the said order has nowhere found that when the Inspectors had gone for inspection of the shop any scheduled drugs were being sold to customers by a person who was not qualified to sell the same. On the contrary, according to respondent No. 1 as the inspection might have taken about an hour, he could not believe that the petitioner, who was the licensee, was not present in the shop only for some time. There is nothing on record to indicate that the inspection took more than an hour. Similarly he also found that because the inspection note book was not kept in the shop it has to be presumed that the petitioner did not co-operate with the Inspectors, which also does not find place in the report of the Inspectors, and consequently he suspended the licence of the petitioner for a period of one month from 1-3-1983.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 2 who probably without carefully going through the entire record also confirmed the order of respondent No. 1 by assuming that even in the absence of the petitioner scheduled drugs were being sold, when the Inspectors visited the shop though there is absolutely no evidence and material to that effect nor it is the case of the Inspectors found in the report. So far as the other point is concerned, the appellate authority has not touched it at all. Thus, it is apparent that the impugned orders have been passed in a mechanical manner without carefully looking into the provisions of the Rules.

( 5 ) THE learned Dy. Government Advocate was not in a position to support the impugned orders legally though