H.R.Sodhi, J.

1. I may first deal with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner relating to attack on the validity of the order on the ground of alleged mala fides of respondents 3 and 4. There is no doubt that an order of any executive authority, even within its jurisdiction, will be quashed by this Court if it is satisfied that the authority has not been exercised honestly, bona fide, and reasonably. It will be an abuse of power indeed if the authority exercising such a power takes into account extraneous matters not pertaining to the object sought to be achieved by the exercise of that authority. The test in all such cases is as to what is the dominant purpose which can be said to have impelled the action. If it is based on personal vendetta then the garb it is given is immaterial. This Court has to go behind the order and ascertain if really the order sought to be challenged is the result of reasons not connected with the purpose desired to be attained. The burden of proof is on the petitioner who alleges mala fides and suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. It is no doubt true that some time it is difficult to find out the motive of