Right to practise a profession cannot be curtailed by a later rule or a vague, reasonless administrative order.

A restrictive administrative order affecting the right to practise as a sonologist could not be sustained where it relied on a rule inserted later to question earlier professional credentials. The Court treated the petitioner's prior practice and training as relevant material, and viewed the omission regarding endorsement in the centre's licence as a technical lapse. It also held that an order must stand or fall on the reasons recorded in it, and cannot be rescued by later explanations in a counter affidavit. As the impugned order was non-speaking and vague, the restraint on practice was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner could be restrained from practising as a sonologist on the basis of a subsequently inserted rule and the surrounding material on record; (ii) Whether the impugned order, being non-speaking and vague, could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner could be restrained from practising as a sonologist on the basis of a subsequently inserted rule and the surrounding material on record.

Analysis: The petitioner had been practising as a sonologist since 1997 and had produced material showing prior professional experience and training. The impugned restriction was sought to be justified with reference to a rule inserted in 2012, which could not be used to assess the petitioner's earlier credentials. The omission regarding endorsement in the centre's licence was treated as a technical lapse, and the Court recognised the petitioner's right to practise as a sonologist as part of the protected freedom to carry on a profession.

Conclusion: The restraint on the petitioner's practice could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order, being non-speaking and vague, could be sustained.

Analysis: The impugned order merely referred in general terms to a breach of the Act without setting out any clear reasons. The Court held that an order must be tested on the reasons contained in it and cannot be improved by later explanations in a counter affidavit. Since the order did not disclose a proper basis for the restraint, it was vulnerable on that ground as well.

Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained as it was non-speaking and vague.

Final Conclusion: The restriction on the petitioner's practice was quashed, and the writ petition succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A restrictive administrative order affecting the right to practise a profession must disclose clear reasons on its face and cannot be justified by later affidavits, especially where it relies on a later-enacted rule to assess earlier professional conduct.

---