Judgment

SHAH, J.: The appellants held a licence under the U. P. Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1962, to deal in sugar as wholesale distributors. They also held a licence under the U. P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964. By letter dated June 5, 1967 the appellants were called upon to explain certain irregularities detected on inspection of their shop by the Assistant Commissioner of Food and Civil Supplies on April 24, 1967. On the following day the appellants were directed to hand over all their stocks of sugar and flour to the Bindki Co-operative Marketing Society. Representations against the order directing the appellants to deliver their stocks made to the District Magistrate, Fatehpur, were not even attended to, and the appellants were obliged to surrender their stocks of sugar and flour. By letter dated June 28, 1967 the appellants were informed that the District Magistrate, Fatehpur, had cancelled their licences as dealers in sugar and flour. The appellants applied for a copy for the order, but it was not supplied.

2. Against the order of the District Magistrate, the appellants submitted an appeal under Clause 8 of the Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1962, on July 19, 1967. By letter dated January 11, 1969, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of U. P. Food and Rationing Department, intimated the appellants that their appeal against the cancellation of the licence by the District Magistrate was rejected. The reasons for the order passed by the State Government were also not communicated to the appellants.

3. The appellants then moved a petition in the High Court of Allahabad for a writ quashing the orders of the District Magistrate and the State Government in appeal. The petition was rejected by a Division Bench of the High Court. With special leave, the appellants have appealed to this Court.

4. The proceedings of the authorities exercising power under the Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1962, and the Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964, strike at the very root of the rule of law. The appellants have by a series of official acts which flout the rule of law been deprived of even the semblance of protection they may claim in an administrative functioning under a democratic Constitution. A day after the date on which the appellants were called upon to submit their explanation regarding the irregularities alleged to be discovered at the inspection they were ordered to part with the stocks of sugar and flour in their possession. Objections raised by the appellants before the District Magistrate were never attended to. No attempt is made to disclose the source of the power and the necessity to exercise that power. By the action of the authorities, the appellants were deprived of their right to carry on business in sugar and flour without even an opportunity to explain the alleged irregularities. Their protests addressed to the District Magistrate were ignored, the District Magistrate cancelled their licences without disclosing any reasons, and the State Government rejected the statutory appeal also without recording any reasons. This series of actions and orders passed by the executive authorities require something more than a plea of ignorance of the law on the part of the authorities to explain. The appellants were entitled at least to be told the reasons for cancelling their licences. The District Magistrate intimated the cancellation of the licences by an official communication, giving no reasons, and the result of the appeal to the State Government was communicated by a letter from the Deputy Secretary to the Government of U .P., without disclosing even the identity of the officer who considered the objections and the reasons for rejecting the objections.

5. The case discloses a disturbing state of affairs. The authorities have disclosed by their conduct a reckless disregard of the rights of the appellants. The order passed by the District Magistrate cancelling the licences was quasi-judicial; it could be