( 1 ) RULE. Ms. P. J. Davawala waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken for final hearing today.

( 2 ) THE present petition arises against the order dated 27-3-2003 passed by Respondent No. 2, Sr. Superintendent of Post Office, City Division, Ahmedabad, whereby the licence of the petitioner for operating franking machine has been cancelled.

( 3 ) I have heard Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Davawala, learned Counsel for the respondents.

( 4 ) THE contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that there are grounds in the show-cause notice which have been properly explained by the petitioner. However, the respondent, at the time of passing the final order dated 27-3-2003, has based the decision on certain aspects and grounds which were not there in the show-cause notice and, therefore, Mr. Mehta submitted that the order would be vitiated as no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner for explaining the additional grounds.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the respondents, Ms. Davawala has submitted, inter alia, that as per the rules reasons are not required to be mentioned for the cancellation of the licence since it is one of the conditions and she submitted that the three grounds were there in the show-cause notice which were considered and in addition that to, pending hearing inquiry was conducted and the result of the inquiry and other aspects were also considered and she submitted that it cannot be said that the order is vitiated. However, she also declared upon the instructions that the respondents have no objection in issuing a fresh show-cause notice and to consider the matter again with a view to see that the principles of natural justice are fully complied with.

( 6 ) CONSIDERING the above, I am of the view that the contention raised by Ms. Davawal on behalf of the respondents that no reasons are required to be recorded while cancelling the licence is ill-founded. The State or any agency of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, may be functioning under the contractual field or in discharge of the statutory duty, has to act reasonably and in a fair play manner. Merely because rule provides, it cannot be said that no reasons whatsoever are required to be mentioned. In scheme of fair play, it is to be read as an in-built mechanism for exercise of powers by all the authorities. Whenever the powers are coupled with the public duty, such powers are to be exercised in a fair manner or even otherwise also it is expected for all the authorities to exercise the power in reasonable and fair manner. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that no reasons are required to be recorded for taking decision of cancellation of the licence, more particularly when licence came to be granted in discharge of statutory powers and, therefore, the said contention of Ms. Davawala fails.

( 7 ) SO far as the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that there were three grounds in the show-cause notice and additional material of the inquiry is referred to and, therefore, it can be said that the opportunity is given, in my view, also cannot be sustained. There is a considerable force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that certain grounds which are mentioned or which are also part of the basis of the impugned order are not reflected in the show-cause notice and, therefore, it is apparent that no opportunity is given to petitioner to meet with such grounds before final decision is taken by the authority. In my view, the law is settled for observation of the principles of natural justice that all the ground must be intimated to the party concerned on the basis of which the adverse order is to be passed. In the present case, since there are additional aspects, more particularly as that of (1) inquiry, (2) change of address and (3) furnishing certain wrong details on the initial stage,