The central legal point established in the judgment is that the authority issuing licenses has the power to inquire into the breach of license conditions but must act within the scope of the legal framework and not exceed its jurisdiction.

Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is running industrial unit and manufacturing petrochemicals. For that purpose, the petitioner obtained licence for manufacturing, trading and consumption of solvent, raffinate and slop under the provisions of Clause 3 of the Solvent, Raffinate and Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage and Prevention of Use in Automobiles) Order, 2000. The licence has been granted on 24.04.2003 and after renewal, it is valid upto 23.04.2006. The copy of the licence is placed on record as Annexure 1.

3. The petitioner also obtained another licence under the Neptha (Acquisition, Sale, Storage and Prevention of Use in Automobiles) order, 2000. This licence was also valid upto 23.04.2004 and after renewal, it is valid upto 23.04.2006.

4. The petitioner also obtained licence from Chief Controller of Explosive on 26.02.2003, which also after renewal, is valid upto 312.2005. As per the terms and conditions of the licence, the petitioner was under obligation to submit certain returns and documents before the competent authorities, time to time.

5. Two FIR Nos. 205/2004 and 209/2004 were registered on 28.08.2004 and 24.08.2004 respectively. The FIR No. 205/2004 was registered under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act on the ground that one tanker carrying 4000 litres of the product manufactured by the petitioner was seized by the police, whereas FIR No. 209/2004 was filed against one Ranjeet Singh for keeping solvent measuring 363 litrs but without having any licence. In the FIR No. 205/2004, the petitioner applied for grant of anticipatory bail whereas, Ranjeet Singh applied for bail under Section 437 CrPC and both were granted bail. The petitioner finding himself implicated in criminal case (FIR No. 209/2004), also submitted anticipatory bail application, that too was allowed and the petitioner was released on anticipatory bail. The allegations in substance are that the petitioner who obtained the licence for solvent and Neptha under the Orders, 2000 referred above, was found indulged in illegal trade of the items which have been meant for the own consumption of the petitioners unit and thereby the petitioner has committed offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. According to the petitioner, the police authorities with ill-intention started harassing the petitioner so that the petitioner may not carry on his business. It is also alleged that for the said purpose, inspection and search was conducted by the Central Excise authorities on the petitioners premises and in that process, the Central Excise authorities seized the books of accounts of the petitioners unit. For the same purpose, two notices have been issued by the District Supply Officer, Udaipur to the petitioner which are dated 22.09.2004, copies of which are placed on record as Annexures 10 and 11 calling upon the petitioner to show cause for the allegations against the petitioner that he did not submit the list of those consumers to whom the petitioner sold the product and the petitioner also did not submit the quarterly returns etc. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notices and copy of which is placed on record as Annexure 12. According to the petitioner, the notices have been issued on

22.09.2004 directing the petitioner to submit reply within three days. The DSO on 27.09.2004 passed the impugned orders Annexures 13 and 14 and stopped the business of petitioners unit under both the licences by two separate orders.

6. The petitioner, therefore, preferred this writ petition to challenge the order dated 27.09.2004. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the action of the DSO (respondent No. 4) is colourable exercise of power only which is clear from the facts that the petitioner submitted returns in time and for which due receipt was given by the DSO himself to the petitioner and despite this fact, the DSO, after registration of the FIRs, issued two show caus