IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-38155-2025 Date of decision: 19.12.2025 PARMOD KUMAR ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Mr. Anuj Baliaan, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 06.06.2024 (Annexure P-3), vide which the licence of the petitioner was suspended, show cause notice dated 07.06.2024 (Annexure P-4), order dated 21.08.2024 (Annexure P-6), vide which the licence of the petitioner was cancelled and order dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure P-9), vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed, along with all the subsequent proceedings arising from order dated 06.06.2024, with a further prayer to direct the respondents to revoke the suspension of the licence of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a raid was conducted upon the premises of the shop of the petitioner and a show cause notice containing various allegations was issued to him. He further submitted that the petitioner was thereafter arrested by the police and as a result, he could not file a reply to the aforesaid show cause notice and rather his wife filed the reply on his behalf and subsequently, the licensing authority cancelled the retail sale drugs licence of the petitioner vide Annexure P-6. He further submitted that thereafter, the petitioner himself filed an appeal by taking various detailed grounds of appeal vide Annexure P-8, but when the appeal was decided vide impugned order dated dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure P-9) by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Health Department, the grounds of appeal were not even considered and the appeal was dismissed by a short order. He also submitted that although it is so mentioned in the appellate order that the appeal was beyond the period of limitation but the same appears to have been decided on merits without giving any reasoning or considering the grounds taken by the petitioner in the grounds of appeal vide Annexure P-8.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the grounds of appeal, the petitioner has so mentioned that the bills under dispute were rather in his possession and copies of the same were attached along with the grounds of appeal but nothing regarding the same finds mention in the impugned order passed by the appellate authority and therefore, the aforesaid order which has been passed by the appellate authority is apparently a non-

speaking order and is liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Udit Garg, Addl. A.G., Haryana could not controvert the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner pertaining to the non-consideration of the grounds of appeal by the appellate authority i.e. the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Health Department.

5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the aforesaid impugned order (Annexure P-9) passed by the appellate authority, along with the grounds of appeal.

6. It is apparent that the appellate authority has passed the impugned order (Annexure P-9), which is an unreasoned order, especially in view of the fact that nothing has been mentioned regarding the receipts which were attached by the petitioner along with the grounds of appeal. Whenever an order is to be passed which visits a person with civil consequences, the person should be given an opportunity of hearing and such opportunity should not only be a simple opportunity of hearing but it should be an adequate opportunity of hearing and the order passed thereafter has to be a well reasoned order because it is a settled law that reasons are the soul of an order. Since the issue in the present case pertains to the right to livelihood of th