An appellate authority cannot review its final order absent express statutory authority.

The petitioner held drug licences for the sale, storage and distribution of drugs.

Following an inspection in May 2017, the Assistant Drug Controller cancelled the licences, citing alleged irregularities including the storage of expired and damaged medicines.

The petitioner appealed under Rule 66(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, and the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and restored the licences on 19 April 2018.

The Authority later stayed that order on 27 August 2018 and, after rehearing, passed a further order on 14 September 2018.

The petitioner challenged the Authority’s power to reopen its final appellate decision.

1. Whether the Appellate Authority, having finally allowed the petitioner’s appeal under Rule 66(2), had power to review, recall or reopen its order dated 19 April 2018 in the absence of an express statutory provision.

2. Whether the subsequent orders staying and reconsidering the appellate decision could be sustained in law.

Rule 66(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, provides for an appeal but, as applied by the Court, does not confer a power of review on the Appellate Authority.

A quasi-judicial authority cannot review its own final order unless the governing statute expressly grants that power.

The Court relied on the Full Bench decision in Nand Kumar Thakur v. The State of Bihar & Ors., L.P.A. No. 672 of 2009, which affirmed that a quasi-judicial authority has no inherent power to review its decision absent express statutory authority.

The Appellate Authority had exercised its appellate jurisdiction and finally disposed of the appeal on 19 April 2018.

The State identified no provision in the Act or Rules empowering the Authority to review or recall that decision.

Applying the principle in Nand Kumar Thakur, the Court held that the Authority could not assume a review power merely by staying its earlier order and rehearing the matter.

Accordingly, the later orders could not be sustained.

It allowed the writ petition and expressly quashed the order dated 27 August 2018; it also held that the subsequent order dated 14 September 2018 could not be sustained in law.