S.K.Sen, C.J. - (1.) In the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of suspension of licence of wholesale of rice. The writ petitioner is a foodgrains dealer and is covered by the U. P. Rice and Paddy (Levy and Regulation of Trade) Order, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Order of 1985) as well as the U. P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as Order of 1989). Restrictions have been imposed upon the licensee by clause 8 of the Order, 1989. Relevant portion of the said clause is quoted below for ready reference : "8. Contravention of conditions of licence.--(1) No licensee or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf shall contravene any provision of this Order or any of the terms and conditions of the licence. (2) If the Licensing Authority is satisfied that any such licensee or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf has contravened any provision of this Order or the terms and conditions of the licence, it may without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him, by order in writing cancel or suspend his licence either in respect of all scheduled commodities covered by it or in respect of such of those commodities as it may think fit : Provided that no order shall be made under this sub-clause unless the licensee has been given a reasonable opportunity of stating his case against the proposed cancellation or suspension as the case may be."
(2.) On the allegation of breach of the conditions imposed by the said clause 8 of the Order of 1989, the petitioner's licence was suspended. Under proviso to sub-clause (2) of clause 8 of the Order of 1989, it is incumbent upon the authorities to provide reasonable opportunity to the licensee of stating his case against the proposed order of suspension or cancellation, as the case may be. In the instant case, no opportunity was given to the licensee before passing the order of suspension. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the order of suspension is contrary to the provisions of the proviso to sub-clause (2) of clause 8 of the Order of 1989 and, therefore, it cannot be sustained.
(3.) Learned standing counsel at the very outset had submitted that under clause 10 of the Order of 1989, it is open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appropriate forum. It is well-settled that where the statute contemplates an opportunity of hearing that has to be complied with. It is also well-settled that if the order is required to be passed in a manner specified in the statute, that has to be done in that particular manner only and not otherwise. This view which we have taken is supported by the following decisions : (1) State of Mizoram v. Biakchhawna, 1995 (1) SCC 156. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when statute requires an action to be taken in a particular manner, the same has to be taken in the same manner. (2) Kuppuswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1998 (8) SCC 469. In this case also the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the statutory rules cannot be over-ridden by executive orders of executive practice.;