ORDER

Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - This petition is by a firm known as Messrs Raja Ram Ram Niwas in a small town of Shamli, district Muzaffarnagar, referred hereinafter as the petitioner firm. The petitioner firm is a licencee of the State Government under the U.P. Sugar and Gur Dealers Licencing Order, 1962 hereinafter referred to as the order. The petitioner firm holds a wholesale licence. The licence number is 221. The District Supply Officer, Muzaffarnagar called at the premises of the petitioner firm on 4 September, 1985 to carry out an inspection. The inspection was carried out. Three weeks later i.e. on 30 September, 1985 the petitioner firm received a show cause notice. This show cause notice sets on record the charges against the petitioner firm and required it to submit a reply within seven days. The notice carried a caution that should the reply not be satisfactory, the licence would be cancelled and the security in deposit forfeited. The essence of the five charges were stereotyped. The complaint in the common charges was that certain quantities of sugar sold on different dates did not carry the signature of the purchaser on the cash memos.

2. This show cause notice is the cause upon which the controversy of the present writ petition rests. The charge against the petitioner firm was that it had violated cl. (8) of the conditions of the licence. Thus, before anything else may be examined by this Court it is necessary to see the said cl. (8) of the conditions of the licence. Cl. (8) is reproduced below :

"8& ykblsUl/kkjh izR;sd xzkgd dh ;FkkfLFkfr ,d Bhd Bhd jlhn ;k chtd nsxk] ftlesa mlds ykblsUl/kkjh dk uke vkSj ykblsUl/kkjh ;fn dksbZ gks O;ogkj dk fnukad cspk x;k ifjek.k izfr DohaVy ewY; vkSj yh x;h dqy /kujkf'k nh jgsxh vkSj og nwljh izfr vius ikl jgsxk] tks ykblsUl vf/kdkjh ;k mlds }kjk rnFkZ izkf/kd`r fdlh vf/kdkjh }kjk ekax dh tkus ij fujh{k.k ds fy;s miyC/k jgsxhA"

3. A perusal of cl. (8) reveals that the requirement or obligation to obtain the signatures of the purchaser is conspicuous by its absence. Such a stipulation is just not there.

4. The petitioner submitted his reply on 6 October. 1985 accepting that sugar was sold against each of the cash memos. It may be set on record that the cash memo, the date on which it was issued, the person who purchased the sugar, the quantity purchased is not in issue. In its reply the firm pleaded that it is a very old firm which has been in business for a very long time and that it did not commit any offence. The firm further submitted on record that should it have committed any offence it seeks forgiveness and further guarantees that the fault will not happen again. The petitioner was seeking forgiveness and giving an assurance for future good conduct for a misdeameanour which was never committed and which the conditions of the licence do not require.

5. The reply, on the show cause notice, of the petitioner was considered by the District Supply Officer, Muzaffamagar. The order of 3-6-1985 places on record that the petitioner firm was intimated that the show cause notice and explanation having been considered the District Supply Officer thought it f it to reject the explanation on 22 November, 1985. This order, now sets on record more charges of which even the petitioner had not been made aware. The additional charges on the petitioner, not given in the show cause notice is that the licence number or the signature of the purchaser was not on the cash memo. The punishment for this was that the security of the petitioner was forfeited. The security was Rs. 1000/-. The licence No. 221 was cancelled. The business of the petitioner, thus, ceased.

6. The petitioner sought an appeal before the learned Commissioner. The learned Commissioner dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was belated and the charges against the petitioner were serious. No reasons are on record why the charges against the petitioner have been sustained nor did the Commissioner give himself an opportunity to di