The principles of natural justice require that a person must be given an opportunity to be heard before an adverse order is passed against them.

Brishketu Saran Sinha, J.

By an ORDER :dated 21st December, 1982, a Bench of this Court observed that this case be heard by a larger Bench and that is how it has come before us.

2. The prayer, in this application, is to quash Annexures 1', 2' and 3', appended to it. Annexure 1' is an ORDER :dated 5th April, 1982, passed by the Collector of Rohtas, respondent no. 4, cancelling the licence of the petitioners of a Country spirit shop. Annexure 2' is an ORDER :, dated 18th May, 1982, passed by the Commissioner of Excise, respondent no. 3, in appeal, affirming the ORDER :of the Collector and Annexure 3' is a resolution of the Member, Board of Revenue, respondent no. 2, dated 30th July, 1982, passed in revision, upholding the ORDER :of the Commissioner of Excise.

3. The three petitioners are joint licensee in respect of a country spirit shop for ratail vend within the area specified in respect of Dehri No.2 country spirit shop. They were granted a licence by the Collector of Rohtas for one year beginning from 1st April, 1981 to 31st March, 1982. On 17th March, 1982, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, respondent no. 5, visited the aforesaid country spirit shop at Dehri. He noticed over-dilution in spirit in some bottles and drums and short measure in others. The Deputy Commissioner recorded his inspection note and directed .the petitioners to submit their explanation in respect of the irregularities to the Superintendent of Excise on 20th March, 1982. The superintendent of Excise also issued notice to the petitioners to submit their explanation, copy of which is Annexure 4'. On 24th March, 1982, the petitioners filed their show cause before the Superintendent of Excise. On that very date the Superintendent of Excise passed an ORDER :, copy of which is Annexure ‘5’. He did not accept the explanation submitted by the petitioners and directed them to show cause as to why action should not be taken for cancellation of their licence under' the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915. He further directed that the petitioners should submit their explanation on 5th April, 1982. Further explanation was submitted by the petitioners on 5th April, 1982, copy of which is Annexure 7'. By an ORDER :passed on the same date, i.e., on 5th April, 1982, the Superintendent of Excise recorded his findings holding the petitioners guilty of dilution and short measure and he submitted the file to the Collector for ORDER :s. Copy of this ORDER :has been annexed as Annexure ‘8’. On 5th April, 1982, itself, the Collector who was the licensing authority passed the impugned ORDER :(Annexure 1') cancelling the licence of the petitioners after endorsing the views of the Superintendent of Excise and directed the Superintendent of Excise to take charge of the stock of the liquor in the shop of the petitioners.

4. It has further been stated in the writ petition that on 29th March, 1982, the Commissioner of Excise had accorded sanction for the renewal of the licence of the country spirit shops during the financial year ending on 31st March, 1982. A copy of this ORDER :is Annexure 9'. However, on 8th April, 1982, after the ORDER :of cancellation of the petitioner's licence had been passed by the Collector, the shop was settled, for the time being, with respondent no. 7, Habibur Rahman.

5. In support of this application it has been submitted that the ORDER :of cancellation of the licence, passed by the collector, cannot be sustained as it violates the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioners were not given an opportunity by the cancelling authority to be heard in the matter. It was also urged that the haste with which the subsequent settlement was made with Habibur Rahman and which has been the subject of some criticism both by the appellate authority and the revisional authority, namely, the Commissioner of Excise and the Member, Board of Revenue, would indicate that the cancellation was not bona fide.

6. On behalf of the respondents, le