( 1 ) THE petitioner, who is a Liquor Contractor, by this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution calls into question the order of the Collector, Satna passed on July 1, 1968 cancelling his licence to sell country liquor by retail at village Babupur.

( 2 ) THE petitioner's licence was for a period of one year from 1st April, 1968 to 31st march, 1969. He was to keep his shop in village Babupur, but its exact location was not mentioned in the licence. From, form of the license prescribed under the excise Rules, it appears that ordinarily every licence in a schedule appended to it contains a description of the site and the boundaries where the licensee has to keep his shop, but in the case of the petitioner the schedule was left blank. This omission in the case of the petitioner gave rise to disputes regarding the location of the shop. According to the petitioner, he all along kept his shop in village babupur, but according to the Excise Inspector, the shop was outside the limits of babupur and was kept in a neighbouring village Nimmi. On 24th May, 1968 the excise Inspector seized the petitioner's licence and the stock of liquor present in the shop. The licence was however, restored by the District Excise Officer on 27tb may, 1968. The petitioner wrote to the Collector and other excise authorities request ing them to specify the site whore he should keep bis shop, but no reply was given to him. Then on 1st July, 1968 the Collector passed the impugned order under Section 31 (1) (b) of the Excise Act 1915 cancelling the petitioner's licence. The order is based on the report of the Excise Inspector, Satna that the petitioner located his shop in village Nimmi, although the licence required him to keep tbe shop in village Babupur, and that he committed other breaches of the conditions of the licence mentioned in the report. ( 3 ) IT is not disputed that the Collector before cancelling tbe petitioner's licence did neither issue him any notice requiring him to explain the charges reported by the excise Inspector nor did he give him any opportunity in any other manner to meet tbe charges. On this admitted position, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the order of cancellation of the licence contravenes the principles of natural justice, and is invalid and void. The learned counsel argues that tbe power conferred by Section 31 of the Excise Act to cancel a licence is a quasi-judicial power, and that the very nature of this power contains an implied limitation that it shall not be exercised without hearing the licensee.

( 4 ) BEFORE considering the argument addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we must first notice the relevant statutory provisions. Section 17 of the central Provinces Excise Act, 1915 provides that no intoxicant shall be sold except under the authority and subject to the terms and conditions of a licence granted in that behalf. Section 18 enacts that the State Government may lease to any person, on such conditions and for such period as it may think fit, the right of manufacturing or supplying or selling, by wholesale or retail, any country liquor within any specified area. It also enacts that the licensing authority may grant to a lessee a licence in the terms of his lease. Section 62 of the Act confers rule-making power on the State Government for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act and without prejudice to the generality of this power specifies a number of items in respect of which the rule making power may be exercised. Thus, rules may be made under Section 62 (2) (h) prescribing the authority by, the form in which and the terms and conditions on and subject to which any licence, permit or pass shall be granted. The State Government, in the exercise of its power under this provision, has framed country spirit rules. Rule V (c) (i) of these rules provides that in a distillery area country spirit may be sold by retail in bulk including