JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Company aggrieved against the order dated 8.5.2015 (Annex.3) passed by the Assistant Drugs Controller, Jodhpur, whereby the petitioner's licence for sale of wholesale drugs has been cancelled and judgment dated 9.7.2015 passed by the appellate authority, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. The petitioner, a private limited company was granted licence under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ('the Act') for sale, stock, distribution of wholesale drugs and the same was valid upto 27.5.2019; an inspection was carried out by the Assistant Drugs Controller, Jodhpur on 2.2.2015 and a show cause notice was issued on 18.2.2015 proposing suspension/cancellation of the licence based on the irregularities found during the course of inspection. The petitioner filed its reply on 4.3.2015, on which the report was sought from the Drugs Control Officer and a report dated 10.4.2015 and 13.4.2015 was produced. 3. After noticing the report of the Drugs Control Officer, the Assistant Drugs Controller found violation of Rule 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 ('the Rules') read with provisions of Sections 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi), 18(c) of the Act & conditions of licence and consequently, by order dated 8.5.2015 cancelled the licence with immediate effect. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal, the appellate authority by its order dated 8.6.2015, on noticing that the sales made outside the State have not been investigated, suspended the order dated 8.5.2015 and ordered for suspension of the licence w.e.f. 8.6.2015 to 7.7.2015 for a period of 30 days and the Drugs Control Officer was directed to constitute a team and after investigation produce a report. 5. After the report was produced, by judgment dated 9.7.2015, the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the bills for sale outside the State were concocted, a FIR has been lodged against the petitioner and without investigation medicine Phensedy (Codeine) has been sold in large quantity, which is used for the purpose of intoxication dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 6. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders impugned have been passed in a very arbitrary and cursory manner without application of mind; Rule 66 of the Rules provide for cancellation of licence, if the licence fails to comply with any of the conditions of licence or any of the provisions of the Act or Rules, the order impugned has been passed on alleged contravention of the licence condition though the orders does not indicate any of the conditions, which has allegedly been violated; the orders passed are non-speaking, the petitioner holds licence for wholesale drugs and there is no bar of selling of drugs in a wholesale quantity; the petitioner produced bills for sale of drugs; no finding has been recorded that the sale in fact did not take place and merely because the details of the licence of the purchasers were not found correct, it cannot be said that the petitioner has violated any of the conditions of the licence. 7. It is further submitted that merely because a particular drug is open to misuse for intoxication cannot be a reason enough for punishing the petitioner without there being any material in this regard available on record. 8. A reference was made to order passed by the appellate authority dated 19.1.2015 (Annex.7), wherein for similar allegations, the drug licence of one Mittal Pharma Pvt. Ltd. was suspended for 15 days and that in case of M/s. Jai Bhawani Medical Agency also the same was suspended for 15 days on similar allegations. It was prayed that the orders impugned be set-aside. 9. Vehemently opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that from a bare perusal of the material available on record, it is apparent that the petitioner has indulged in selling of drugs in large quantity in violation of the conditions of licence, wherein the petitioner is required to indicate the name and licence details of the bulk purchaser. The investigation clearly reveals that the licence numbers indicated in the invoice of the petitioner were bogus and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the facts of the case. 10. The investigation clearly reveals that the licence numbers indicated in the invoice of the petitioner were bogus and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the facts of the case. 10. With reference to the orders passed in the case of Mittal Pharma Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Jai Bhawani Medical Agency, it was submitted that the quantities involved in their case was much less, inasmuch as, in case of Mittal Pharma Pvt. Ltd., the same involved 4,500 bottles and in case of M/s. Jai Bhawani Medical Agency, the allegation pertains to non-following the procedure for wholesale trade, whereas in the case of petitioner, the allegation pertained to sale of 1,84,713 bottles and therefore, the petitioner cannot compare his case with the said licences. 11. It is further submitted that as per the directions of the appellate authority, detailed investigation were made and it was found as a fact that the Drug Licence number (DL number) indicated on the invoice to whom the drugs were purportedly sold were fake and therefore, the respondents were justified in cancelling the licence of the petitioner. It was prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 13. The petitioner has not produced the show cause notice and the reply submitted by him in response to the said show cause notice, however, from the impugned order (Annex.-3), it can be gathered that based on the inspection report dated 2.2.2015, the show cause notice was issued pertaining to the violation with regard to sale of drug Phensedy (Codeine). The details produced by the petitioner were got scrutinised from the Drugs Control Officer and the said officer indicated that record of 1,85,000 bottles of drug Phensedy (Codeine) was not produced, the majority of sale has been to firms outside the State, the drug licence of the purchaser was not produced and no information was given regarding their validity, the goods were sold by cash and the mode of transport and payment have not been produced. The Assistant Drugs Controller by the impugned order based on the report concluded as under:- ^^4- ;g gS fd ykbZlsalh }kjk 1]84]713 nok QSUlhfM~y ¼dksfMu½ ftldk vuqekfur [kqnjk eqY; dqy :0 1]66]24]170@& dk fodz; jkT; ls ckgj fd;k tkuk vf/kfu;e ,oa fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 65 lifBr ykbZlsal dh 'krksZa dk izekf.kr mYya?ku gS ,oa bruh vf/kd ek=k esa mDr u'ks ds :i esa nq:i;ksx gksus okyh nok dk voS/k fodz; fd;k tkuk izekf.kr gSA bl rjg Jh galjkt e.Mk vkS"kf/k fu;a=.k vf/kdkjh tks/kiqj ds fujh{k.k fjiksVZ fnukad 02-02-2015] Jherh yfr'kk vPNokuh vkS"kf/k fu;a=.k vf/kdkjh tks/kiqj ds fujh{k.k fnukad 01-04-2015 o dkj.k crkvksa uksfVl ds fcUnqvksa ij fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 65 lifBr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi), 18(c) ,oa ykbZlsUlksa dh 'krksZ dk mYya?ku fd;k tkuk izekf.kr gSA** and consequently, cancelled the licence. 14. On an appeal filed by the petitioner, the appellate authority on finding that the details provided by the petitioner were not investigated, directed for its investigation. 14. On an appeal filed by the petitioner, the appellate authority on finding that the details provided by the petitioner were not investigated, directed for its investigation. The investigation report produced by the respondents is Annexure-R/2 (Pg.101 of the paper-book), which has been sent by the Assistant Commissioner (Drugs), Agra, which reads as under:- ^^i=kad %& 132@,Qå,låMhå,å@M~x@2015 fnukad% 21-06-2015 fo"k;%& QeZ eSa xksfoUn esfMdy ,tsUlh izkåfyå] irk nqdku uaå 8 o 9] vij Q~yksj jktnku eslau] tkyksjh ckjh] tks/kiqj jktå ds }kjk QsfUlfMy dQ fyadV~l dksfMu vkS"kf/k dk jkT; ds ckgj mRrj izns'k esa vkxjk o vkl ikl ds {ks=ksa esa csps tkus ds lEc/k esaA mijksDr fo"k;d ds lEcU/k esa vki ds i=kad&,låihå,yå 1] fnukad 22-06-2015 ds }kjk fuEufyf[kr vkS"kf/k izfr"Bkuksa ds lEcU/k lwpuk ekaxh xbZ gS%& 1- eSaå xkso/kZu QkekZ] 58 ,eåVhåvkjå 20ch&21ch VhåvkbZå,uå gkFkjl jksM] eFkqjk 2 eSaå xqIk esfMdy ,tsUlh] 61,] thåvkjå 20ch&21ch VhåvkbZå,uå eFkqjk jksM] vkxjk] 3 eSa fcany esfMdy LVksj] 68 ,åthåvkjå 20ch&21ch VhåvkbZå,uå Qjg ftyk vkxjk] 4 eSaå xqIrk esfMdy LVksj] 51 ,eåVhåvkjå 20ch&21ch VhåvkbZå,uå eFkqjkA mDr izfr"Bkuksa ds lEcU/k esa voxr djkuk gS fd lEcfU/kr vkS"kf/k fujh{kd ds dk;kZy; esa miyC/k vfHkys[kksa ds vuqlkj mDr izfr"Bku ftyk vkxjk o eFkqjk] esa iathd`r ugha gSA vki ds i= esa eSllZ fcany esfMdy LVksj] Qjg ftyk vkxjk vafdr gSA Qjg ftyk vkxjk ds LFkku ij ftyk eFkqjk esa vkrk gS rFkk M~x ykbZlsal la[;k 68 ,åthåvkjå 20ch&21ch VhåvkbZå,uå Hkjh ftyk eFkqjk dh fljht ugha gS ,åthåvkjå fljht vkxjk dh gSA eSllZ vkjåchålUl eSau cktkj lknkckn] vkxjk e.My esa ugha gSA lknkckn ftyk gkFkjl e.My vyhx<+ esa gSA v/kksgLrk{kjh }kjk ftyk gkFkjl ds vkS"kf/k fujh{kd Jh iwju pUnz ls eSllZ vkjåchålUl eSau cktkj lknkckj M~x ykbZlsal o la[;k 107 ,åthåvkjå 20ch&21 VhåvkbZå,uå ds lEcU/k esa ekWaxh xbZ lwpuk ij Jh iwju pUnz }kjk Hksth xbZ bZ&esy }kjk voxr djk;k fd eSllZ vkjåchålUl eSu cktkj lknkckn muds dk;kZy; esa miyC/k vfHkys[kksa ds vuqlkj ftyk gkFkjl esa iathd`r ugha gS vkSj ukgha 107 ,åthåvkjå 20ch 21 VhåvkbZå,uå dh fljht ftyk gkFkjl dh gSA Hkonh; ,låMhå 22-06-2015 ¼ihådså eksnh½ lgk;d vk;qDr vkS"kf/k [kk| lqj{kk ,oa vkS"kf/k iz'kklu vkxjk e.My] vkxjkA** 15. A perusal of the above report clearly indicated that all the particulars which were produced by the petitioner before the respondent authorities and which were indicated in the invoices regarding the purchasers were found to be incorrect. A perusal of the above report clearly indicated that all the particulars which were produced by the petitioner before the respondent authorities and which were indicated in the invoices regarding the purchasers were found to be incorrect. Based on the above report, the appellate authority, which had initially stayed the operation of the order cancelling petitioner's licence, came to the following conclusion :- ^^bl izdkj vihykFkhZ QeZ }kjk jktLFkku jkT; ds ckgj ds fodz; fcy dwVjfpr ik;s x;s gSA cgl ds nkSjku foHkkx ds vf/kdkfj;ksa us crk;k fd fnukad 07-07-2015 dks vihykFkhZ dh QeZ ds f[kykQ iqfyl Fkkuk] [kkaMk Qylk] tks/kiqj esa ,QåvkbZåvkjå tfj;s uaå 102@2015 Hkh ntZ djk nh xbZ gSA vihykFkhZ }kjk fcuk tkWap ds vkS"kf/k QSUlhfM~y ¼dksfMu½ cM+h ek=k esa fodz; fd;k x;k tks fu;e ds fo:) gSa] rFkk ;g vkS"kf/k fo'ks"k dj u'ks ds :i esa dke esa yh tkrh gS vihykFkhZ }kjk vkS"kf/k vuqKki= dh 'krksZa dk mYya?ku gksuk ik;k x;k gSA vr% jsLiksMsaV ds fookfnr vkns'k dzekad 421 fnukad 08-05-2015 esa dksbZ Hkh la'kks/ku djuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA vr% vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA** 16. A perusal of the licence Annex.-1 issued to the petitioner to sell, stock, or exhibit or offer for sale or distribute by wholesale drugs specified in Schedule 'C', 'C(1)' excluding those specified in Schedule 'X' indicates the conditions of licence, which inter-alia requires that the petitioner shall not sale any drugs to a person not holding the requisite licence to sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute the drug and certain exceptions had also been provided. 17. The said condition in the licence cast a burden on the wholesaler to ensure the genuineness of the purchaser and the requirement to indicate the particulars of his licence in the invoice is essentially meant for cross checking the genuineness of such purchasers. Once an obligation is cast in this regard on the wholesaler to ensure genuineness of the purchaser and that also for a drug, which is likely to be misused for intoxication, once the particulars as indicated in the licence are found to be incorrect and baseless, the petitioner cannot get away by seeking to argue/allege that he is not expected to investigate into the genuineness of each and every buyer involved in the transaction with the petitioner. 18. 18. A perusal of the orders passed by two authorities clearly indicates that the transaction of the drugs in question which amounted to a sum of Rs. 1,66,24,170/- were all conducted in cash, no particulars regarding the mode of transportation was indicated in the invoices, which necessarily means and is claimed by the petitioner that the entire transaction was done by hand. The very fact that the entire transactions in question took place with the firms allegedly situated at Utter Pradesh, and on investigation vide Annexure-R/1 (supra) it was specifically found that not one such alleged purchaser genuinely existed as indicated in the invoices of the petitioner, in view of the above state of affairs, the finding of the appellate authority that the sale invoices are concocted cannot be said to be without any basis as once the alleged purchasers as indicated in the invoices are found to be non-existent, the natural consequence of the same is that the invoices in question which are also of cash transaction of sums running into lakhs of rupees are but fake and the names of the firms and their particulars including the DL numbers have been indicated only to create a camouflage of a genuine transaction with a wholesaler. 19. In view thereof, the finding of the appellate authority cannot be faulted. 20. It is also relevant to notice that after filing of the reply by the State relying on the reports, which has formed the basis for passing of the orders impugned, the petitioner has chosen not to file any rejoinder to the said reply/disputing the contents of the reply and/or the documents, which necessarily means that the petitioner had no explanation to offer and the submission that the petitioner is not expected to investigate the genuineness of each purchaser has already been negated herein-before looking to the nature of transaction involved. 21. So far as the submissions with regard to Mittal Pharma Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Jai Bhawani Medical Agency is concerned, the nature of orders passed, in those cases cannot be termed as precedent for the authorities to follow in each case as the nature of transactions and the gravity of the conduct of the licence is much relevant for the purpose of quantum of punishment. 22. 22. Coming to the proportionality of punishment imposed on the petitioner, in the circumstances of the case where the petitioner has been found not only involved in selling drugs in violation of the conditions of licence, from the material available on record, it is also apparently established that the petitioner also indulged in indicating wrong details, particulars and/or concocting the invoices and therefore, it cannot be said that the punishment of cancellation of licence in the circumstances of the case is disproportionate to be guilt found. 23. In view of the above discussion, no case for interference in the orders impugned is made out. The writ petition has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed.