R.L. Gulati, J. - (1.) 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.;