The opportunity to state the case, as required by Clause 11 of the Cement Order, 1974, does not mean a trial or inquiry like that of a civil or criminal case. It only requires the licensee to be given a chance to file a reply, submit documentary or oral evidence, and state his case against the proposed cancellation or suspension.

GUMAN MAL LODHA, J.

( 1 ) white collar crimes and there again, economic crimes, shocking and rocking the entire society, ever increasing either in the form of black marketing or food adulteration or smuggling, have assumed disastrous dimensions, providing manifold litigation. The snail moving, haulting and faultering speed. with which the administration and prosecution both act rather in-act is not only shocking, but is challenging the very utility of the laws which are fast break- ing and cracking on account of this lethargy, indifference and red tapism. Whether, this tantamounts to moral abetment or acquiescence is a question to be answered by law-makers and not law-interpreters, if not. the decision would be of pauserity (posterity ?) alone and not courts of law.

( 2 ) WITH the above preface, let me now come to the brass text of the present case and the controversy raised.

( 3 ) THE stock of cement was confiscated after a raid and on inspection on 18-61977, but even after three years, neither petitioner-accused has been convicted, nor acquitted. That apart, even the proceedings of confiscation or cancellation of the licence have not become final. The present writ petition challenging the same, filed in September, 1979, has now come up for consideration for decision as to whether the petition should be admitted. Are we not all abetting these alleged social crimes by such inordinate delays ?

( 4 ) MR. K. N. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner was very vehement. when he prayed for quashing the impugned order of cancellation of licence, on the ground that it is very valuable fundamental right of the petitioner and he is being deprived of the same by an executive fiat without a proper opportunity to show cause, thus violating both the principles of law and justice. According to him, there was no prima facie case of black marketing by contravention of cement. Order of License conditions, and the case against, his client was wholly fabricated and concocted one, 4a. Petitioners case is that on 18-6-1977 Inspector of District Supply Office, barmer visited shop of the petitioner and directed the petitioner (not ?) to sell the cement to the customers. The shop of the petitioner including the stocks. was sealed.

( 5 ) A notice was received under Clause 11 of the Rajasthan Cement Order, 1974 (hereinafter referred to be as the Cement Order) and the petitioner submitted explanation along with his affidavit dated 9-8-1977. Against the written order-sheet, it was pointed out by Mr. Joshi, that opportunity was claimed for producing evidence, but the Officers concerned asked the petitioner to put signature on a blank order-sheet which was later on fabricated to show that petitioner voluntarily closed the evidence on that day. An appeal was filed under Clause 20 of the Rajasthan Cement Order, before the Collector. Barmer and since there was no substance in the same in view of the Collector, he dismissed the appeal on 23-11-1977. A revision was then filed before the State of Rajasthan but the same was rejected on 25-4-1979 with the observation that no revision lies. In this writ petition petitioner has made the following prayers:

" (i) that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order of the district Supply Officer, Banner, Ann. 1 and the order of the Collector, barmer Ann. ? may be quashed. (ii) That by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to return the forfeited commodity to the petitioner and his licence may be renewed. (iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction to which the petitioner may be entitled to in the circumstances of the case may be passed. "

( 6 ) AS mentioned earlier, Mr. Joshi, appearing for the petitioner, vehemently argued that his client has not been given proper opportunity of hearing or showing cause by leading evidence before the impugned order was passed. It was pointed out that the order-sheet was fabricated later on, by the officers concerned who t