An order canceling a license must be passed only after hearing the licensee and considering the grounds on which the cancellation is sought.

( 1 ) THE writ petitioner, having been aggrieved, by an order of cancellation of retail vending licence passed by the authorities has approached the Court for quashing the same. The petitioner claims that their family, at least since the time of his father has been obtaining licence as a retail vender. His father obtained the licence as a retail vender who continued as such till his death. After his demise, even it was granted to his mother who died in the year 1977. From then on, the said licence in respect of mother, has been renewed and/or settled by the competent authority under the provisions of Rule 209 of the Consolidated Rules framed under Section 86 of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909, and the Circular Notification made thereunder. His place of business has been delineated at village Sunderchack within Kulti P. S. District-Burdwan.

( 2 ) IT is claimed by the petitioner that some-times in the 2nd week of April, 1992, he went to his native village Jourgram where his other family members used to reside and stayed till 17th April, 1992. He met an accident on his way as a result of which he had to be hospitalised. Therefore, he could not open the shop due to his illness and noncooperation by his salesmen. During his illness, he could not procure Country Spirit Bottles and there was nil balance by the time of visit of the Officer-in-charge of Excise, Barakar. The petitioner implored the authorities for producing the Medical Certificate and other relevant papers as to why he could not procure the stock during his illness. But, it appears that his oral prayer could not impress the authority, subsequently, he received a letter-memo No. 664/e (W) dated 2nd May, 1992 directed the petitioner to show-cause in writing by 11. 5. 92 as to why his licence shall not be suspended or cancelled under Section 42 (1) (c) of the Bengal Excise Act. In response to the said notice, the petitioner allegedly sent a letter requesting the authority to grant some time for submission of his show-cause. Again on 15. 5. 92 another show-cause notice was sent to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Excise, Burdwan asking him to submit the reply by 18. 5. 92. The petitioner in compliance with the letter dated 15. 5. 92 submitted his reply on 18. 5. 92 indicating the grounds why he failed to maintain the minimum stock of Country Spirit as required under the provision of the Act. Despite such reply, it appears that the Additional District Magistrate without proper application of mind passed an order, inter alia, cancelling the licence issued to the petitioner.

( 3 ) ALTHOUGH, the service of notice on the government pleader is filed, but, it appears neither the government pleader nor anyone from his panel has taken any steps in this case. Even before taking up hearing the petitioner was directed to serve a notice on the panel lawyer, Samarendra Nath Bose, but conspicuously he failed to take any steps in the case.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Motriyee Ghosh, urged with strong intensity of conviction that the impugned order passed by Additional District Magistrate is whimsical, illegal arbitrary and irrational. It is submitted that when a show-cause notice was issued to the petition who accordingly applied for time for the same. Within a short spell, the authority had issued another show-cause notice and the petitioner immediately following the same submitted his show-cause. But it seems the authority without considering the grounds mentioned in the show cause or giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner passed an unilateral order cancelling his license. Therefore, the action of the Additional District Magistrate should be characterised to have been made with closed mind and for extraneous consideration.

( 5 ) MRS. Motriyee Ghosh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, further highlighted the authorities have deliberately flouted the provisions and wrongly cancelled the licence of the petitioner.

(