JUDGMENT 1. This is an intra court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of W.P. No.3010 of 2010 under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 against an order dated 26.08.2010 passed by Single Judge in aforementioned writ petition. 2. Facts of the case are these. 3. The appellant (writ petitioner) is a partnership firm. It is engaged in the business of sale of pharmaceuticals drugs. The appellant has obtained license for sale of the drugs as per provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940. (For short called the Act). 4. On 1.7.2009 the sleuths of Drug Controller under the Act raided the premises of one of the partner of the appellant-firm and seized some banned drugs from his2 premises. It is this seizure that led to initiation of proceedings under the Act against the appellant for cancellation of their Drug license issued under the Act. A show cause was given to the appellant. On obtaining the reply from the appellant, the licensing authority by order Dated 17.7.2009 (Annexure-7) cancelled the license granted to the appellant. The appellant feeling aggrieved by the cancellation, filed an appeal as provided under the Act before the specified appellate authority being Appeal No.50/2010. The appellate authority concurred with the order of the licensing authority and dismissed the appeal. It is against this dismissal of the appeal, the present appellant felt aggrieved and filed writ petition out of which this appeal arise. The Writ Court dismissed the writ petition in consequence upheld the orders impugned in the writ petition. It is against this order the writ petitioner has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant while attacking the impugned orders, mainly argued one point. His submission was that when the seizure of the banned goods did not take place from the premises of the appellants (firm) (licensee) but took place at the premises of appellant's one of partner, then in such event, the proceedings fell squarely within the four corners of Section 34 of the Act read with Rule 66 (1) proviso of the Rules. According to learned counsel, the reading of the order of cancellation of license followed by the order of appellate authority and lastly the order of writ court, it no where records a finding much less categorical finding as to how and in what way, the license granted to the firm could be cancelled due to this seizure and whether ingredients of these two provisions on facts were held made out for cancellation of the appellants license. In other words, the submission was that there has to be a categorical finding in3 the order of cancellation that appellant has committed breach of Section 34 read with Rule 66 or/that appellant failed to discharge their burden as provided in twin provisions. Learned Counsel, therefore, urged that the matter needs remand for its decision on this issue. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the orders impugned herein and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties on perusal of the record of the case we are inclined to allow the appeal and set aside all the three orders referred supra and in consequence remand the case to the licensing authority for deciding the matter afresh as indicated by this court infra. 8. Section 34 and Rule 66 are the two relevant provisions for deciding the issue that is subject matter of show cause issued to the appellant in this case. They read as under:- "Sec.34. Offences by companies-(1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part, of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against punished accordingly. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section- (a) "company" means a body corporate, and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) "director" in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm. Rule 66. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section- (a) "company" means a body corporate, and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) "director" in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm. Rule 66. Cancellation and suspension of licences.-(1) The licensing authority may, after giving the licensee an opportunity to show cause why such an order should not be passed by an order in writing stating the reasons therefore, cancel a licence issued under this Part or suspend it for such period as he thinks fit, either wholly or in respect of some of the substances to which it relates, if in his opinion, the licensee has failed to comply with any of the conditions of the licence or with any provisions of the Act or rules thereunder: Provided that, where such failure or contravention is the consequence of an Act or omission on the part of an agent or employee, the licence shall not be cancelled or suspended if the licensee proves to the satisfaction of the licensing authority- (a) that the act or omission was not instigated or connived at by him or, if the licensee is a firm or company, by a partner of the firm or a director of the company, or (b) that he or his agent or employee had not been guilty of any similar act or omission within twelve months before the date on which the act or omission in question took place, or where his agent or employee had been guilty of any such act or omission, the licensee had not or could not reasonably have had, knowledge of that previous act or omission, or (c) if the act or omission was a continuing act or omission, he had not or could not reasonably have had knowledge of that previous act or omission, or (d) that he had used due diligence to ensure that the conditions of the licence or the provisions of the Act or the rules thereunder were observed. (2) A licensee whose licence has been suspended or cancelled may, within three months of the date of order under sub-rule (1), prefer an appeal against that order to the State Government, which shall decide the same." Mere reading of the afore-quoted two provisions in juxtaposition would go to show that they apply to cases of all such licensees who are either a company or a firm. . . In other words, if the company or a partnership firm holds a drug license and if the director of such company or partner of such firm commits any offence/contravention of any of the terms of their license then their license can be cancelled. However if the licensee (company/firm) is able to prove to the satisfaction of6 the licensing authority that notwithstanding the commission of offence/breach, their case falls in any of the excepted category of cases specified in clause (a) or (b) or (c) or (d) of the proviso to Rule 66 ibid then no action can be taken against such licensee by the licensing authority for such breach/offence alleged to have been committed by the Director or partner or employee or agent of the licensee as the case may be. This inquiry on facts has got to be made in every case and depending upon the stand taken by the licensee, the orders are required to be passed by the licensing authority for suspension or/cancellation of licence.In our opinion, keeping in view the object, purport requirements of afore quoted two provisions, the issue in this case has got to be decided in the first instance by the licensing authority in the light of the requirements of two provisions of the Act/Rules. The reason is that here on the facts, the seizure of the contraband articles has taken place at the premises of one of the partner of the licensee i.e. appellant (firm) and not from the premises of the appellant firm itself. In a case of this nature, therefore, the finding as contemplated under these two provisions i.e Section 34 and Rule 66 ibid for taking action against the licensee has to be recorded in clear terms and then only, action as provided under the Act is called for against the licensee either for suspension or/cancellation of their license. We do not find any such categorical finding recorded by any of these authorities on these parameters and nor we find that the issue was examined and then decided keeping in view the requirements of these two provisions. In other words, we do not find that the issue involved in this case was dealt with in the light of these two provisions on the facts brought on record. In other words, we do not find that the issue involved in this case was dealt with in the light of these two provisions on the facts brought on record. It is for this reason, we are of the view, that the matter needs to be remanded to the authorities concern for deciding the matter again. 9. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Impugned orders i.e order dated 17.07.2009, order dated 16.3.2010 and order impugned in this appeal are set aside. The case is now remanded to the licensing authority for deciding the matter afresh keeping in view the provisions of Section 34 of the Act and Rule 66 of the Rules and then pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 10. We, however, make it clear that this order should not in any way influence the licensing authority while deciding the case either way. Since there was no factual finding of the authorities in the light of these two provisions and neither writ court and nor this appellate court can record any factual finding on the issue for the first time in these proceedings and hence we have remanded the case. The licensing authority would, therefore, proceed to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law but in the light of what we have said above and without being influenced by any of our observations made supra. It be decided within one month.Appeal Allowed. *******