K.N.Singh, J. - (1.) THE petitioner firm Ram Khelari Gokul Chand is dealer in food grains and holds two licences, one in Form B and the other in Form F for whole-sale commission agency under the U.P. Food grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964. It also holds a licence in form B under the U.P. Oil-Seeds and Oil-Seeds Products Control Or der, 1960, on January 30, 1974, the Deputy Regional Marketing Ins pector inspected the petitioner's business premises, he found certain irregularities, thereafter by an order dated June 11, 1974 he suspend ed all the aforesaid three licences of the petitioner firm for a period of four months. The petitioner challenged the suspension order be fore this Court by means of the present petition. During the pen dency of the writ petition, the Deputy Regional Food Controller, Agra, cancelled all the three licences of the petitioner by his order dated June 27, 1974. The petitioner thereupon got the petition am ended and challenged the cancellation order also.
(2.) THE Deputy Regional Food Controller by his order dated March G, 1974, required the petitioner to submit his explanation to the charges which mentioned three irregularities. Firstly, it was stated that on the date of inspection of the petitioner's business premises on a physical verification of the stock of groundnuts, twenty-one bags were found in excess; secondly, it was alleged that the arrivals of the food grains had not been entered in the Satti Bahi and, thirdly, it was alleged that nothing was stated on the stock board and rate board about the stock of food grains available with the petitioner. The peti tioner gave a detailed explanation, accordingly to him 21 bags of groundnuts had been brought to the petitioners premises by the cultivators during the daytime when neither any partner " nor the Munim was present, it was further stated that the entry about the said 21 bags of groundnuts would have been made at the end of the day. The petitioner further explained that necessary details were mentioned on the stock board with chalk but they were dim. The petitioner further explained that he had not contravened any provi sion of the Licensing Order or any of the conditions of the licences. II appears that after receipt of the expunction no further en quiry was held but merely on a perusal of the petitioner's explana tion and the inspection report, the Deputy Regional Food Controller, Agra, passed the impugned order dated June 27, 1974, cancelling all the three licences of the petitioner. In the impugned order the De puty Regional Food Controller, Agra, narrated facts and thereafter he recorded his conclusions in the last paragraph in the following words: (Translated version) "I have perused the record. I have come to the conclusion that the petitioner is in the habit of carrying on number two business. On January 30, 1974, the stock of groundnuts was found which had not been entered in the 'Satti Bahi'. This is the proof against the petitioner. The petitioner's conduct in business is not desir able. Therefore, I direct that his two licences be cancelled and the entire security money be forfeited."
(3.) THE reasons quoted above are the only reasons for cancelling the petitioner's licence. The petitioner's licences which have been cancelled by the im pugned order were granted to it under the U.P. Food grains Dealers Licensing Order and U.P. Oil-Seeds and Oil-Seeds Products Control Order, 1960. Under clause 4 licence is issued to a food grain dealer and the licensee is required to comply with the conditions contained in the licence. Clause 8 of the Food grains Dealers Licensing Order makes provision for suspension and cancellation of the order after affording opportunity to the dealer concerned. A licence is liable to be cancelled if the dealer contravenes any of the terms and conditions of the licence or if he contravenes any of the provisions of the Licens ing Order. Clause 8 of the U.P. Oil- Seeds and Oil-Seeds Products Control Order as amended in 1967 contains similar provisions. These provisions clearly indicate that the Licensing Authority is required to act in a quasi-judicial manner in cancelling the licence. Appeal is also provided against the order of cancellation to the Commissioner. The provision for appeal implies that the Licensing Authority is un der a legal obligation to act in a quasi- judicial manner and to record reasons for cancelling the licence.;