Cancellation of a license without due process violates fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g).

1. The petitioner who is a registered partnership firm, carries on business at Sibsagar. They were appointed as an 'Iron and Steel' dealer under the Government of Assam in the year 1942 and continued as such up to the year 1958. They were appointed as a distributing agent for cement; for the sub-division of Sibsagar by the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Supply Department by his letter No.SDB.90/59/129 dated the 15th May, 1959. The petitioners obtained a licence from the Director of Consumer Goods, Assam to deal with cement at Sibsagar which was renewable every year on payment of the prescribed fee. The petitioners deposited the prescribed fee and a license dated 12-6-59 was issued to them in the prescribed form A under the Assam Cement Control and Distribution Order, 1953 (hereinafter called 'the 1953 Order'). By a letter dated the 18th March 1961 the Director of Consumer Goods, Assam, Shillong who is arrayed as opposite party No.3 in this petition, cancelled the distributing agency for cement of the petitioners and also the license dated the 12th June 1959. The petitioners thereafter filed an appeal to the State Government against the aforesaid order as provided under clause 15 of the 1953 Order. The appeal was rejected by an order dated the 6th July 1961 issued under the signature of the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Supply Department. The two orders have been challenged by the present petition under Art.226 of the Constitution.

2. The contention of the petitioners is that their license was cancelled without giving them a reasonable opportunity to show cause and as the cancellation of the license affects their fundamental right to carry on business, the cancellation order is violative of their fundamental right guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It is further contended that as the right of the petitioners was affected, the principles of natural justice demanded that they should have been given a reasonable opportunity before they were actually condemned.

3. Before going into the merits of the case it will be convenient to dispose of the preliminary point raised by the counsel for the State. It is contended by the State council that the petitioners had no fundamental right to get the license and the petitioners had no right to be appointed the distributing agents of the cement on behalf of the Government and thus they are not entitled to any direction by this court quashing the impugned orders under Art.226 of the Constitution.

4. The relevant portion of the order dated 18-3-61 issued by the Director of Consumer Goods Assam reads as follows:
"The distributing Agency for Cement of M/s. Amolakchand Murlidhar Sibsagar sanctioned vide Government Letter No.SDB.90/59/129 dated 15-3-59 and Licence No.70 dated 12/6/59, issued in favour of the aforesaid party is hereby cancelled with immediate effect for contravening clauses 4 and 6 of the conditions of the appointment, clauses 11, 12 and 14(2), (4) and (5) of the Assam Cement Control and Distribution O.1953 (Amended up to 1959) and clause 5 of the licence."
This order shows that both the distributing agency and the licence of the petitioners have been terminated.

5. S.3 of the Assam Cement Control Act, 1953 (Assam Act VII of 1953) (hereinafter called 'the 1953 Act') gives power to the State Government in so far as it appears to it to be necessary or expedient for maintaining or increasing th