ORDER

R.L. Gulati, J. - A common question arises in this and the connected writ petition. The facts are also identical. Therefore, the two petitions shall be disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The Petitioner holds a licence under the U.P. Excise Act in F.L. 17 for the retail vend of denatured spirit in the district of Pauri Garhwal. He is holding, the licence since 1956 which is being renewed from year to year. The licence was last renewed on April 1, 1972, valid for one year and ending on 31st March, 1973. On September 16, 1972, the third Respondent, the District Magistrate, Pauri-Garhwal, issued an order to the Excise Inspector Incharge of the circle, stating that in view of the various complaints of the misuse of the denatured spirit, the State of Uttar Pradesh has ordered that F.L. 17 licences at Deoprayag, Satpuli and Dogadda be cancelled. The Excise Inspector was accordingly directed to get the shop of the Petitioner closed and his licence cancelled and deposited in the office of the District Magistrate. In pursuance of this order the fourth Respondent, the Excise Inspector, inspected the shop of the Petitioner and made a note on September 19, 1972 in the register maintained by the Petitioner and took away his licence. The Petitioner has challenged this action of the excise authorities in his petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. The Petitioner's contention is that his licence could not be cancelled without notice to him as admittedly has been done in this case. He has also complained of discrimination hit by Article 14 of the Constitution on the ground that out of the six licences he and two others have been singled out for cancellation of licences without there being any rational basis for this selection. The last ground is that the order of cancellation has been passed at the behest of the State and not in the independent exercise of the discretion vested in the District Magistrate.

4. It has no been denied that the licence of the Petitioner was cancelled without any notice to him. From the order of the District Magistrate, it is clear that the Petitioner's licence has been cancelled because of certain complaints of the misuse of the denatured spirit sold by him. In the circumstances it was necessary to give an opportunity to the Petitioner, to show cause against the proposed action. That is a requirement of the principle of natural justice.

5. That apart, there is another serious infirmity in the action taken by the excise authorities Sections 54 and 35 of the Excise Act provide for the cancellation of a licence. Under both the provisions the authority which can cancel a licence is the authority which had granted the licence. Now admittedly the licence was granted in the instant case, by the District Excise Officer who is the District Magistrate of Pauri-Garhwal, The District Excise Officer alone has been vested with the power to cancel a licence. The power of cancellation has obviously to be exercised by, him in the exercise of his own independent judgment and discretion. He cannot pass an order at the behest of the State Government. In fact the State Government is the revising authority to which a revision would lie against the order cancelling a licence. It follows that the Slate Government itself cannot pass an Order of cancellation. The State Government of course, can formulate the policy and if according to the policy decided upon, it is considered necessary to reduce the number of licenced vendors of denatured spirit, the task of cancelling the existing licences should be left to the District Excise Officer. The State Government itself is not empowered to pass any such order. This view is supported; by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sheopat Rai v. State of UP. CMW No. 4163 of 1972, D/-29-8-1972, On this view, of the matter, it is not necessary to deal with the contention founded Under Article 14 of the Constitution.

6. The petition is allowed. The order of the Distict Magistrate,