SURESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(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 ).

(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.