( 1 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4-4-1985 passed by the District Supply Officer Rajkot canceling its wholesale dealer license No. 192 and retail dealer license No. 166 granted to the petitioner under the provisions of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing Control and Stock Declaration) Order 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Licensing Order ). The said Order is at annexure E to the petition. The Order recites that on account of the misconducts found during the inquiry as the petitioner-dealer has committed breaches of secs. 23 (1) 16 and 18 (1) of the Licensing Order and of the conditions Nos. 7 and 9 of the license the said licenses are liable to be cancelled. An appeal to the Collector could be preferred within 30 days from the receipt of the said order. The petitioner has filed the present petition on 15-4-1985 in this court challenging the aforesaid Order directly by way of the present petition and has sought for a declaration that clause 8 of the Licensing Order is unconstitutional and void and also for quashing and setting aside of the Order at annexure E.

( 2 ) IN Order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner a few relevant introductory fact are required to be noted at the outset.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business as a dealer in petroleum products at Morvi in Rajkot district. At the relevant time it held essential commodities retail trade license No. 166 and essential commodities wholesale trade license No. 192. Both these licenses were for dealing in crude kerosene. The aforesaid licenses were issued to the petitioner as per the relevant provisions of the Licensing Order which in turn were issued by the Government of Gujarat in exercise of the power conferred on it by sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 It appears that somewhere in later part of November 1984 the Chief Supply Inspector Rajkot inquired into the petitioners working as a dealer of kerosene at its shop at Morvi when he found certain alleged misconduct in the said working. He made a report to the Disciplinary authority viz. District Supply Officer Rajkot respondent No. 2 herein. Respondent No. 2 thereafter by his order dated 26 1984 ordered that the petitioners both licenses as a wholesale dealer and retail dealer of petroleum product shall stand suspended for 90 days from the date of the order or till the disposal of the case whichever was earlier. That order was passed under the powers conferred on the authority under clause 8 (2) of the Licensing Order. The said suspension order is at annexure A. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 23-1-1985 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why both the licenses granted to it should not be cancelled on account of the alleged misconducts listed in the show cause notice at items Nos. 1 to 4. A copy of the show cause notice is at annexure B. The inquiry was thereafter conducted by respondent No. 2 at his office. Date of hearing was fixed on 5-2-1985. As no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner at the time of hearing and as fresh date of hearing was sought for the inquiry was adjourned to 9-2-1985 at 12. 15 p. m. in the office of the second respondent. In the meantime the petitioner filed a detailed written reply on 16-2-1985 refuting the charges leveled against it about the alleged misconducts as listed in the show cause notice. It appears that on 19-2-1985 the petitioners partner Harshadrai Jamnadas Kotak appeared before the second respondent and gave his statement in writing. Thereafter the second respondent passed his impugned order dated 4-4-1985. . . . . . . . . .

( 4 ) MR. S. B. Vakil learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions in support of the petition. (1) The impugned order is null and void and without jurisdiction in as much as it is passed beyond the time limit as enjoined by clause 8 (2) of the Licensing