Orissa High Court
Saroj Kumar Panda @ vs State Of Odisha on 31 March, 2026
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India.
Saroj Kumar Panda @ .... Petitioner
Saroj Kumar Pandia
Mr. R. Roy, Advocate
-versus-
1. State of Odisha,
represented
through Principal
Secretary, Revenue
and Disaster
Management, At-
Odisha Secretariate,
Sachivalaya Marg,
Bhubaneswar, Dist-
Khurda
2. District Magistrate-
cum-Collector,
Subarnapur
3. Tahasildar-cum-
Enforcement
Officer, Ullunda,
Subarnapur
4. Sub-Collector,
Biramaharajpur, .... Opposite Parties
Subarnapur
Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
DATE OF FINAL HEARING : 15.12.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 31.03.2026
Page 1 of 30
W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021
V. Narasingh, J.
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.
1. The petitioner, a licensed pharmacist and proprietor of medicine shop namely 'M/s. Subarnaseva Medicare', has filed this writ application assailing the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Subrnapaur at Annexure-1 thereby directing the closure of his medicine shop till all the proceeding by the police are completed and matter is decided by the Hon'ble Court and the impugned communication dated 16.06.2021 at Annexure-2 issued by the Tahasildar-cum- Enforcement Officer, Ullunda, by which the order at Annexure-1 was communicated to the Petitioner.
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is culled out hereunder for reference:-
"xxx xxx xxx In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties Page 2 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021 to show cause as to why the order under annexure-1 issued by the District Magistrate and Collector, Subarnapur and the letter dated 16.06.2021 under annexure-2 issued by the Tahasildar-cum- Enforcement Officer, Ullunda shall not be quashed.
And if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, make the said rule absolute by quashing the impugned order and letter under annexure- 1 & 2 respectively holding the same to be illegal and beyond jurisdiction.
And/or pass any writ/writs, order/orders this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
xxx xxx xxx"
2. The facts contended by the Petitioner are as follows:-
The Petitioner is a pharmacist holding a D.Pharm degree and a license vide OPC Regd.
No.8279 issued to him for practice of pharmacy under the Indian Pharmacy Act, 19481 and the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 20152. The Petitioner in order to open a medicine store, applied for a drug license 1 The Pharmacy Act, 1948 (8 of 1948) 2 the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 Page 3 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021 under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 19403 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 19454 and accordingly, he was granted a license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 19403. Such license was subsequently modified so far as it relates to change of location, license was issued to run a medicine shop namely 'M/s. Subarnaseva Medicare' at Plot No.136/1214, Khata No.- 131/57, At/Mouza-Gandabahal, P.O./P.S. Ullunda, District-Subarnapur (Annexure-3 Series).
2-A. Since the shop of the Petitioner at Gandabahal was undergoing renovation, being a licensed Pharmacist, had stocked medicines at his residence at Nimna and sometimes used to sell some of those medicines in order to cater to the emergency healthcare needs patients.
2-B. On 25.05.2021, the Tahasildar-cum-
Enforcement officer, Ullunda and Sub-Collector, Birmaharajpur visited the Petitioner's residence and alleged that he had been violating Covid-19 3 The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940) 4 The Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 Page 4 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021 Guidelines issued by the State Government for selling medicines and treating patients. With the said allegations, the authorities left the premises and asked the Petitioner to meet them in their office.
2-C. The Petitioner showed his pharmacist license as well as the medicine store license, which had been issued in his favor for running a medicine store at Gandabahal, Ullunda and also apprised that as a licensed Pharmacist, he is eligible to practice as per the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 20152.
But the Tahasildar, without any rhyme or reason, directed the Petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- for violating Covid-19 norms. The Petitioner being a law abiding citizen paid the same.
2-D. Having paid a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, the Petitioner was shocked to find that his medicine store at Gandabahal was sealed by the authorities, although there was no allegation of violation of any Covid norms in respect of the said medicine store.Page 5 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021
2-E. To add insult to injury, an FIR at Annexure-6 was lodged at Ullunda Police Station bearing Ullunda P.S. Case No. 81 dated 27.05.2021 under Sections 4195/4206 IPC and Section 277 of the Drugs and 5
419. Punishment for cheating by personation.--Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.6
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.7
27. Penalty for manufacturer, sale, etc., of drugs in contravention of this Chapter.--Whoever, himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or for distribution, or sells, or stocks or exhibits or offers for sale or distributes,--
(a) any drug deemed to be adulterated under Section 17-A or spurious under Section 17-B and which when used by any person for or in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation, or prevention of any disease or disorder is likely to cause his death or is likely to cause such harm on his body as would amount to grievous hurt within the meaning of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), solely on account of such drug being adulterated or spurious or not of standard quality, as the case may be, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than ten lakh rupees or three times value of the drugs confiscated, whichever is more;
Provided that the fine imposed on and released from, the person convicted under this clause shall be paid, by way of compensation, to the person who had used the adulterated or spurious drugs referred to in this clause:
Provided further that where the use of the adulterated or spurious drugs referred to in this clause has caused the death of a person who used such drugs, the fine imposed on and realised from, the person convicted under this clause, shall be paid to the relative of the person who had died due to the use of the adulterated or spurious drugs referred to in this clause. Explanation.--For the purposes of the second proviso, the expression "relative" means--
(i) spouse of the deceased person; or
(ii) a minor legitimate son, and unmarried legitimate daughter and a widowed mother; or
(iii) parent of the minor victim; or
(iv) if wholly dependent on the earnings of the deceased person at the time of his death, a son or a daughter who has attained the age of eighteen years; or
(v) any person, if wholly or in part, dependent on the earnings of the deceased person at the time of his death,--
(a) the parent; or
(b) a minor brother or an unmarried sister; or
(c) a widowed daughter-in-law; or
(d) a widowed sister; or
(e) a minor child of a pre-deceased son; or
(f) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter where no parent of the child is alive;
or Page 6 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021 Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Section 418 of the Clinical Establishment (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 on the selfsame allegations.
(g) the paternal grandparent if no parent of the member is alive;
(b) any drug--
(i) deemed to be adulterated under Section 17-A, but not being a drug referred to in clause (a), or
(ii) without a valid licence as required under clause (c) of Section 18, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to five years and with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees or three times the value of the drugs confiscated, whichever is more:
Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three years and of fine of less than one lakh rupees;
(c) any drug deemed to be spurious under Section 17-B, but not being a drug referred to in clause (a) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and with fine which shall not be (sic less than) three lakh rupees or three times the value of the drugs confiscated, whichever is more:
Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons, to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years but not less than three years and of fine of less than one lakh rupees;
(d) any drug, other than a drug referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), in contravention of any other provision of this Chapter or any rule made thereunder, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to two years and with fine which shall not be less than twenty thousand rupees:
Provided that the Court may for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year.8
41. Monetary penalty for non-registration.-- (1) Whoever carries on a clinical establishment without registration shall, on first contravention, be liable to a monetary penalty up to fifty thousand rupees, for second contravention with a monetary penalty which may extend to two lakh rupees and for any subsequent contravention with a monetary penalty which may extend to five lakh rupees.
(2) Whoever knowingly serves in a clinical establishment which is not duly registered under this Act, shall be liable to a monetary penalty which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees.
(3) For the purpose of adjudging under sub-sections (1) and (2), the authority shall hold an inquiry in the prescribed manner after giving any person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard for the purpose of imposing any monetary penalty.
(4) While holding an inquiry the authority shall have power to summon and enforce the attendance of any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case to give evidence or to produce any document which in the opinion of the authority, may be useful for or relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry and if, on such inquiry, it is satisfied that the person has failed to comply with the provisions specified in sub-sections (1) and (2), it may by order impose the monetary penalty specified in those sub-sections to be deposited within thirty days of the order in the account referred to in sub-section (8) of Section 42. (5) While determining the quantum of monetary penalty, the authority shall take into account the category, size and type of the clinical establishment and local conditions of the area in which the establishment is situated. Page 7 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021 2-F. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.2- Collector- cum-District Magistrate by impugned Order at Annexure-1 concluded that the petitioner has willfully violated the license granted to him for running medical shop and he has knowingly duped public and illegally practiced medicine and directed the shop to remain closed till all the proceeding by the police are complete and matter is decided by the Hon'ble Court. 2-G. The Opposite Party No.3-Tahasildar cum Enforcement Officer by his communication dated 16.06.2021 vide Annexure-2, also impugned herein, communicated the order of the Collector at Annexure- 1 to the petitioner.
2-H. Assailing order passed by the Opposite Party No.2- Collector-cum-District Magistrate by impugned Order at Annexure-1 and communication dated 16.06.2021 vide Annexure-2 by which the Tahasildar communicated the order of the Collector at Annexure- (6) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the authority may prefer an appeal to the State Council within a period of three months from the date of the said decision.
(7) The manner of filing the appeal referred to in sub-section (6) shall be such as may be prescribed.
Page 8 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021 1 to the petitioner, the petitioner filed the present writ application, as already noted.
3. In reply to the aforesaid averments, the Opposite Parties have filed a counter affidavit justifying the impugned order at Annexure-1, stating that there are no illegalities or irregularities in the order passed by the learned District Magistrate & Collector, Subarnapur and the letter dated 16.06.2021 of the Tahasildar-cum-Enforcement Officer, Ullunda, thereby sealing the medicine store of the Petitioner, as the District Magistrate and Collector is the sole authority responsible for containing the spread, tracking and management of the Covid-19 pandemic in the District.
3-A. In para-8 of the counter affidavit, it is contended that during the visit to the residence of the Petitioner at village Nimna, the Sub-Collector, Birmaharajpur and Tahasildar, Ullunda found that a huge number of people had gathered in front of his house.
Page 9 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021
On being asked, they replied that they had come for treatment by the Petitioner and to purchase medicine from his clinic. Both the authorities asked the Petitioner to produce documents/license by virtue of which he was treating people and selling medicines.
The Petitioner produced his pharmacist certificate and drug license for sale of medicine in Subarnaseva Medical Store at Gandabahal, Ullunda only.
3-B. It is contended that no licensee is permitted to use one drug license for selling of medicines at multiple places. Further medicine stocks were noticed at the residence of the Petitioner for selling to patients, who were undergoing treatment under his supervision. Violation of Covid-19 protocols were also noticed.
3-C. It is further submitted that allegations regarding violation of COVID-19 guidelines were also received in respect of the medical store at Page 10 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021 Gandabahal, Ullunda, run by the Petitioner on the strength of the license granted.
Basing on that, enforcing authorities reached there and sealed the medical shop on the ground of violation of Covid-19 protocols by not maintaining social distancing and use of masks.
3-D. Since the Petitioner used his drug license in both the villages, namely Gandabahal and Nimna, although he obtained the license only for Gandabahal, he violated the norms of the use of drug license. Without having any license for treating patients, he was operating a clinic. He was further treating Covid- 19 and non-Covid-19 patients simultaneously in one premises when the spread of the second wave of Covid-19 was at its peak, on account of which local people made allegations against such treatment endangering public health. Accordingly, a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) was imposed upon him for violation of Covid-19 guidelines, and he paid the same without demur. Page 11 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021 3-E. In paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit, it is contended by the Opposite Parties that the authorities came to know that the petitioner has a medical store at Gandabahal, Ullunda. To know the state of such medical store, both authorities went to the Gandabala Medical store named as Subarnaseva Medicare. They found at the premise of the medical store of Gandabahal gathering of people who had not maintained social distance and had not used masks. Seeing such type of violation of protocols of Covid 19, the Gandabahal Medical store named as "Subarna seva Medicare" was sealed.
Further, FIR was lodged before I.I.C., Ullunda Police Station by the Tahasildar, Ullunda against the Petitioners for having violated Covid -19 guidelines, misusing the Drug License and playing with life of common people.
3-F. It is further contended in paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit that the clinic and medical store at Nimna were not sealed as they were functioning at Page 12 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021 the Petitioner's residence, and sealing them would have blocked entry and exit. However, the medical store at Gandabahal, Ullunda was sealed due to violation of Covid-19 protocols, including lack of social distancing and usage of mask amid large gatherings. Complaints were received from local residents regarding such gatherings, and one person staying next to the clinic was reported to have been affected by Covid-19. It is further contended that the guidelines of Covid-19 issued from time to time by the Government of Odisha do not bar the District Collector-cum-Magistrate, within his jurisdiction, from sealing a medical store if it is considered likely to contribute to the spread of Covid-19. Further penalty of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) was imposed due to violation of Covid-19 guidelines by the Petitioner at his residential store and clinic at Nimna, Subarna Seva Medical Store at Gandabahal, Ullunda was sealed to stop supply of medicines to Nimna to prevent spread of Covid-19.
Page 13 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021
It is further submitted that one cannot run multiple medical stores using the same license and that only specially trained doctors can treat Covid-19 patients. But the Petitioner was treating all types of patients is an unregistered clinic.
3-G. In this background, the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties, Mr. Swain, AGA, submitted that the passing of the impugned orders at Annexures-1 and 2 was necessitated to stop the illegal practice undertaken by the Petitioner, which was endangering the life and limb of the public at large, and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. In reply to the averments made before this Court and the arguments advanced by the Opposite Parties, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the authorities, while directing sealing of the shop at Gandabahal, failed to take note that the said shop holds a valid license under Annexure-3 Series and thus, it could not have been sealed merely Page 14 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021 on the allegation that the license for Gandabahal was used at Nimna.
5. It is further contended that the Petitioner is a Pharmacy Practitioner under Regulation 2(h)9, providing Pharmaceutical Care as defined in Regulation 2(g)10, and is also a Clinical Pharmacist under Regulation 2(h)(iv)9 and a Registered Pharmacist under Regulation 2(i)11. So far as the role 9
2.Definitions: (h) "Pharmacy Practitioner" means an individual (Community Pharmacist/ Hospital Pharmacist/ Clinical Pharmacist/ Drug information Pharmacist) currently licensed, registered or otherwise authorized under the Act to counsel or otherwise and administer drugs in the course of professional practice. i. "Community pharmacist" means an individual currently registered and who works according to legal and ethical guidelines to ensure the correct and safe supply of medical products to the general public. They are involved in maintaining and improving people's health by providing advice and information as well as supplying prescription medicines.
ii. "Hospital Pharmacist" means an individual currently registered and who works in a hospital pharmacy service, primarily within the public / private sector. They are responsible for ensuring the safe, appropriate and cost-effective use of medicines. Hospital pharmacists use their specialist knowledge to dispense drugs and advise patients about the medicines which have been prescribed. They work collaboratively with other health care professionals to devise the most appropriate drug treatment for patients. Some pharmacists are also involved in manufacturing required drug treatments.
iii. "Drug Information Pharmacist" means an individual currently registered who works in a community pharmacy/hospital Pharmacy/teaching hospital/ other health care settings and provides information and advice regarding drug interactions, side effects, dosage and proper medication storage to patients/physicians/dentists/other health care professionals. iv. "Clinical Pharmacist" means an individual currently registered and who provides patient care that optimizes the use of medication and promotes health, wellness and disease prevention. Clinical pharmacists care for patients in all health care settings. Clinical pharmacists often collaborate with physicians and other healthcare professionals.
10
(g) "Pharmaceutical care" means the provision of drug therapy and other patient care services intended to achieve outcomes related to the care or prevention of a disease, elimination or reduction of a patient's symptoms, or arresting or slowing of a disease process, as defined by the Pharmacy Council of India.
(i) "Registered Pharmacist" means a person whose name is for the time being 11 entered in the register of the State in which he is for the time being residing or carrying on his profession or business of pharmacy under the Pharmacy Act, 1948. Page 15 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021 of the Petitioner as a pharmacist is concerned, reliance is placed on the following Regulations. It was his utmost duty, under Regulations 4.112, 8.113, 8.214, and 8.415, to render service to humanity. And, on 12 4.1 Character of registered pharmacist : (a) The prime object of the pharmacy profession is to render service to humanity; reward or financial gain is a subordinate consideration. Who- so-ever chooses his profession, assumes the obligation to conduct himself in accordance with its ideals. A registered pharmacist should be an upright man, instructed in the art of medicines. He shall keep himself pure in character and be diligent in caring for the sick; he should be modest, sober, patient, prompt in discharging his duty without anxiety; conducting himself with propriety in his profession and in all the actions of his life.
(b) A person having qualification in any other system of pharmacy is not allowed to practice modern system of pharmacy in any form.
(c) A registered pharmacist shall uphold the dignity and honour of his profession. 13 8.1 Obligations to the Sick: (a) Though a registered pharmacist is not bound to attend each and every person asking his services, he shall not only be ever ready to respond to the calls of the sick and the injured, but shall be mindful of the high character of his mission and the responsibility he discharges in the course of his professional duties. He shall never forget that the health and the lives of those entrusted to his care depend on his skill and attention.
(b) Registered pharmacist having any incapacity detrimental to the patient or which can affect his performance vis-à-vis the patient shall not be permitted to practice his profession.
(c) Pharmaceutical care (in addition to the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945 and Schedule N of the said Rules) the following provisions shall be included :-
- No person other than a Registered Pharmacist shall compound, prepare, mix, dispense or supply of any medicine on the prescription of a Registered Medical Practitioner (Schedule H & X drugs);
- A Registered Pharmacist shall review the patient record and each prescription presented for supply for the purpose of promoting therapeutic appropriateness by identifying :
(i) Over utilization or under utilization
(ii) Therapeutic duplication
(iii) Drug-disease interactions
(iv) Drug-drug interactions
(v) Incorrect drug dosage or duration of drug treatment
(vi) Drug-allergy interactions
(vii) Correlation of availability of drugs (to avoid artificial shortage of drugs)
(viii) Clinical abuse/misuse 14 8.2 Patience, Delicacy and Secrecy: Patience and delicacy shall characterize the registered pharmacist. Confidences concerning individual or domestic life entrusted by patients to a registered pharmacist and defects in the disposition or character of patients observed during medical attendance shall never be revealed unless their revelation is required by the laws of the State. Sometimes, however, a registered pharmacist shall determine whether his duty to society requires him to employ knowledge, obtained through confidence as a registered pharmacist, to protect a healthy person against a communicable disease to which he is about to be exposed. In such instance, the registered pharmacist shall act as he would wish another to act toward one of his own family in like circumstances.15
8.4 The Patient must not be neglected: A registered pharmacist is free to choose whom he will serve. However, he shall respond to any request for his Page 16 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021 such basis, it is submitted that the Petitioner, acting in good faith, was providing pharmaceutical care to the best of his abilities during the Covid-19 pandemic.
6. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that, at best, the matter at hand can be said to be a violation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 19403, and the Collector and the Tahasildar are not the authorities to decide whether there has been any violation of the drug license issued in favour of the Petitioner by the Drugs Controller Authority.
7. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3, in paragraphs 8 to 11 of their counter affidavit, have stated that the Gandabahal Medical Store was closed due to violation of Covid-19 protocols. However, no such ground was taken in Annexures-1 and 2.
assistance in an emergency. Registered pharmacist shall not willfully commit an act of negligence that may deprive his patient or patients from necessary medical care. Page 17 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021
It is a settled position of law that reasons not assigned in the impugned order cannot be taken into account by being incorporated by way of counter affidavit, and therefore, such subsequent explanations cannot be considered.
8. To substantiate the submission, the Petitioner relies upon the following judgments.
i. Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Officer, New Delhi16 ii. Bhikubhai Vithlabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat17
9. It is borne out from the record that, by order dated 20.07.2021 of this Court, the Petitioner was allowed to open his medical store, subject to observing COVID-19 appropriate behaviour.
10. Further, in reply to the query of this Court as to the status of the FIR at Annexure-6, in terms of the order dated 01.09.2025 of this Court, learned 16 Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Officer, New Delhi; AIR 1978 SC 851 17 Bhikubhai Vithlabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 4 SCC 144 Page 18 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021 counsel for the State submitted instructions regarding Ullunda P.S. Case No. 81 of 2021.
The same has been taken on record, indicating that in the meanwhile, a charge sheet has been submitted on 23.05.2023 under Sections 4195/4206 IPC, Section 418 of the Clinical Establishments (R&R) Act, 2010 and Section 3318 of the Orissa Medical Registration Act, 1961.
The instruction, which is taken on record, further reveals that the Petitioner is not implicated for commission of any offence under Section 277 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
11. On these competing submissions, this Court is called upon to adjudicate whether the impugned order at Annexure-1 directing closure of the medicine shop of the Petitioner is sustainable in law.
12. Under the provisions of the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015, a registered pharmacist is entitled 18
33. Penalty on unregistered person representing that he is registered : If any person whose name is not entered in the register, is found to practise medicine or uses in connection with his name or title any words or letters representing that his name is so entere, he shall, whether any person is actually deceived by such representation or not, be punishable, on conviction by a Magistrate of the First Class, with fine which may extend to three hundred rupees. Page 19 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021 to practise the profession of pharmacy, subject to the conditions and restrictions stipulated therein. The scope of such practice encompasses patient counselling, drug administration, primary patient care and other allied activities as contemplated under the said Regulations. Therefore, the Petitioner, being a registered pharmacist, cannot be said to be acting dehors the framework of law while discharging such functions.
Be that as it may, since a charge sheet has been submitted in the proceeding pursuant to FIR at Annexure-6 under the aforementioned provisions, this Court refrains itself from making any observation vis-à-vis the criminal proceeding pursuant to FIR at Annexure-6, i.e., Ullunda P.S. Case No. 81 of 2021.
13. From a bare reading of the order at Annexure- 1, it can be seen that the authorities have sealed the medicine store and clinic at Nimna on account of alleged violation of COVID-19 guidelines. It is also borne out from the said order that: "Similarly, Sri Page 20 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021 Pandia also misutilized the certificate provided to him for sale of medicines at village Gandabahal, for which the medicine store at Gandabahal was also sealed by the Tahasildar on the ground of abetment, and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only was imposed as per COVID-19 guidelines issued from time to time." It is further recorded therein that: "Sri Pandia has willfully violated the license granted to him for running a medical shop. Moreover, he has knowingly duped public and illegally practiced medicine and directed the shop to remain closed till all proceedings by the police are complete and the matter is decided by the Hon'ble Court."
For convenience of reference the impugned order passed by the Collector at Annexure-1 is culled out hereunder:-
Page 21 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021 Page 22 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021
14. From communication dated 16.06.2021 at Annexure-2, it is evident that the shop at Gandabahal was sealed and a fine of Rs.50,000/- was imposed for violation of Covid-19 Guidelines.
For convenience of reference the impugned order passed by the Tahasildar at Annexure-2 is culled out hereunder:-
Page 23 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021
15. On a conspectus of materials on record, admittedly the stands taken by the Opposite Parties, particularly in paragraphs 8, 9 and 11, are not reflected in the impugned order at Annexure-1 nor in the communication of the Tahasildar at Annexure-2, by which the impugned order at Annexure-1 was communicated to the Petitioner. Thus, the said contentions are clearly an improvisation in an attempt to justify the impugned orders at Annexures-1 and 2.
16. Law is no more res integra that decisions or official orders, especially by administrative authorities, cannot be justified, supplemented, or improved upon by bringing in new reasons through a counter-affidavit. The validity of an order must be judged solely on the grounds mentioned within the order itself at the time it was made. Post-decisional rationalizations in affidavits are legally inadmissible and impermissible.
It is a settled position of law, right from the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court Page 24 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021 rendered in the year 1978 in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra)16, that the existence of reasons must be borne out from the impugned order itself and cannot be supplemented by a subsequent affidavit.
A useful reference may be made to paragraph 8 of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra)16, which reads as follows:
"8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may. by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J., in Gordhandas Bhani (AIR 1952 SC 16) (at p.18): "Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what Page 25 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021 he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow old."
The said view was reiterated in the decision of S.N. Mukherjee V. Union of India19, wherein paragraph 36 reads as under;
"36. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of 19 S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India; (1990) 4 SCC 594.Page 26 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021
arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision on judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage"
A similar view has also been taken in Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel (supra)17. For Page 27 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021 convenience of ready reference Paragraph-35 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder;
"35......It is very well settled, public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority, cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the decision making authority. Public orders made by authorities are meant to have public effect and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself."
17. From a bare reading of both the impugned orders at Annexures-1 and 2, admittedly there is no material to show that the authorities had visited the Petitioner's shop at Gandabahal and that the shop was sealed on account of violation of Covid-19 Guidelines. The alleged visit to the shop and noticing of violation of Covid-19 Guidelines appears to have been improvised by way of counter affidavit, supplementing reasons and justifying the sealing of the shop at Gandabahal, in respect of which a license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 19403 is still in vogue, thereby authorizing the Petitioner to sell Page 28 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021 medicines therein. It needs no emphasis that decisions or official orders, especially by administrative authorities, cannot be justified, supplemented, or improved upon by introducing new reasons through a counter-affidavit.
Thus, the sealing of the shop of the Petitioner at Gandabahal on account of violation of Covid-19 Guidelines is not borne out from the record, and the authorities have acted beyond their jurisdiction in sealing the licensed medicine store, which is situated at a distance of about 10 km from village Nimna, without any trace of violation of Covid-19 Guidelines. Since the drug license in respect of the said shop is in vogue, the impugned orders directing closure of the medicine shop till completion of the police proceedings and decision of the matter by the Hon'ble Court are ex-facie illegal, arbitrary, and mala fide, being the result of non-application of mind.
18. Thus, the impugned orders passed by the Collector and District magistrate, Subarnapur at Page 29 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021 Annexure-1 and the consequential order at Annexure- 2 issued by the Tahasildar-cum-Enforcement Officer, intimating the order at Annexure-1 to the Petitioner, are unsustainable and hereby quashed.
19. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
(V. NARASINGH) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 31st March, 2026/Santoshi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 16-Apr-2026 20:31:43 Page 30 of 30 W.P.(C) No.18808 of 2021