JUDGMENT 1. THIS Rule was issued at the instance of the petitioner against cancellation of his registration as a Seaman and a further order dated 1st June, 1966 passed in revision. The petitioner's case, briefly, is as follows : 2. HE was registered in the Seamen's Employment Office, Calcutta as a seaman in the category of Pantrymate on March 13, 1956 and by gradual promotion he became a General Steward on May 14, 1957. During a voyage while the ship was in New York Port, he was fined Rs. 184. 54 by the Customs authorities there as he was found to have been in possession of 2 ozs. of marijuana (ganja) in contravention of customs Regulations. For this at the end of his voyage he was referred to the disciplinary committee by the Director, Seamen's Employment Office, calcutta by his memo dated June 24, 1965. He submitted an explanation but the disciplinary Committee could not take any unanimous decision, the matter was referred to the Director General of Shipping who in his turn directed the Disciplinary Committee for its fresh consideration in the light of the observations made by him. Upon this the Disciplinary Committee in its meeting held on February 3, 1966 by a majority decision recommended cancellation of the petitioner's registration. Accordingly, the Director, Seamen's Employment Office, Calcutta, respondent no. 3, cancelled his registration as a seaman. Then the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Director General of Shipping, respondent No. 2 who without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner refused to interfere and dismissed the appeal. That is how the petitioner felt aggrieved and has come up to this Court and obtained the present Rule. Upon these facts a number of grounds were taken but Mr. That is how the petitioner felt aggrieved and has come up to this Court and obtained the present Rule. Upon these facts a number of grounds were taken but Mr. Habibullah, learned Advocate for the petitioner raised the following points: (i) The petitioner was not involved in any case of smuggling and therefore, the order passed for cancellation of his registration as a Seaman was entirely invalid, (ii) The Director, Seamen's Employment Office, Calcutta, respondent No. 3, did not apply his mind at all but passed the order for cancellation of the petitioner's registration as a Seaman on the recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee which is not permitted either under the Act or under the Rules, (iii) The Disciplinary Committee even not having- proceeded independently but having taken advice from the Director General of Shipping, its entire recommendation for cancellation of the petitioner's registration was invalid. (iv) The order passed by the appellate authority without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is bad in law. 3. I will take up the third point first. It is not disputed on behalf of the respondent in their affidavit-in-opposition that the Disciplinary Committee referred the matter to the Director General of Shipping, Bombay for its opinion on the charges levelled against the petitioner. By a letter dated 22nd December, 1965 (Annexure A to the affidavit-in-opposition) the Executive Officer on behalf of the Director General of Shipping addressed to the Director, Seamen's Employment office, Calcutta respondent No. 3, communicated its decision as follows : "reference your letter No. 106 (6)65 dated 24. 11. 65 on the above subject. Since the Seaman Shaikh Shahzada in question has been fined for smuggling activi-ties in New York by the Cuctoms authorities in contravention of the Customs Regulations, his registration may be cancelled. It has also been decided that in future similar cases of Seamen bund guilty by Customs authorities in smuggling of narcotics and dangerous drugs, their registration should also be cancelled. " 4. ALTHOUGH, this letter was addressed to the Director, Seamen's Employment Office, Calcutta it appears to have been placed before the disciplinary Committee which in its 116th meeting held on February 3, 1966 passed a resolution inter alia as follows : "the Seaman was present and heard. " 4. ALTHOUGH, this letter was addressed to the Director, Seamen's Employment Office, Calcutta it appears to have been placed before the disciplinary Committee which in its 116th meeting held on February 3, 1966 passed a resolution inter alia as follows : "the Seaman was present and heard. As decided by the Director General of shipping, Bombay, that the registration of a Seaman be cancelled even for having been fined by the Customs Authorities for smuggling narcotic drugs, it was recommended to cancel the registration of the Seaman." Then, this recommendation was taken into consideration by the respondent No. 3 who ultimately passed an onier for cancellation of the reglstra-tin of the petitioner with immediate effect on February 24, 1966. It thus appears that the Disciplinary Committee clearly even as an enquiry committee failed to form its own opinion. It proceeded on the opinion given by the director General of Shipping, Bombay or at any rate by the Executive Officer from its office. It is contended on be-ha of the respondent that this committee was constituted pursuant to rule49 (1) of the Indian Merchant shipping Seamen's Employment Office rules, 1954 (referred to herein as the rules) for its opinion and recommendation, on charge or charges mentioned in this; Rule to enable the Director to deal with the matter and pass appropriate orders under this Rule. Now rule 49 (1) (a) provides :- "49 (1) The director may cancel, under advice to the shipping company in the event of the man being on the Company Register, the legislation of a seaman permanently or he may suspend the seaman's registration for any specified period of time when the Shipping Master reports that a seaman has been adversely reported upon by the ship owner in respect of character, discipline or ability, or that he has been found guilty of any of the following : (a) offences, such as smuggling or theft. " 5. THIS Rule, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner, had no scope for constituting a disciplinary committee for an enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner. It was said that the Director must have to come to its own finding on the charges and pass necessary orders if at all of cancellation of registration of the seaman concerned. I cannot agree. It was said that the Director must have to come to its own finding on the charges and pass necessary orders if at all of cancellation of registration of the seaman concerned. I cannot agree. For I do not find any prohibition in this Rule against constitution of a committee for an enquiry into the charges against a concerned seaman. Nevertheless, the disciplinary Committee clearly must come to its own finding and form its own opinion. Here, this committee at the first meeting on this matter could not come to any conclusion and then it asked for the advice of the Director General of Shipping. A letter as already noticed containing recommendation for cancellation of the registration of the petitioner was sent by the Executive officer from the office of the Director general. In my view, this is not permitted. For Rule 52 of the Rules provides for an appeal against an order passed by the Director to the Director general of Shipping, Bombay. That being so, the advice or the opinion given to the Disciplinary Committee at the enquiry stage by the Director General of Shipping recommending cancellation of the registration of the petitioner has no doubt vitiated the entire proceeding. 6. THIS apart it is well settled that whenever under any statute or statutory rules any public officer or authority is obliged to form an opinion affecting the interest of public or any individual, that opinion must be formed by the officer or the authority itself. See (1) AIR 1952 SC 16 , Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas. In the present case having regard to the provision of the rules, it is clear that the disciplinary Committee constituted under this Rule for an enquiry into the charges and for its recommendation to the Director concerned must form its own opinion on an objective basis by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and not merely on a subjective process of its own. For, before penalty is imposed on charges of certain offences, such as smuggling or theft, the Disciplinary Committee must comre to a finding on proper evidence that the charge or charges against the seamen concerned have been established. Here, it is clear that the Director cancelled the registration of the petitioner not on the recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee but of the director General of Shipping, Bombay or any Executive Officer under this authority. Here, it is clear that the Director cancelled the registration of the petitioner not on the recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee but of the director General of Shipping, Bombay or any Executive Officer under this authority. Such being the position, in my view, the impugned order passed by the Director, respondent No. 3, suffers from serious infirmities and must be struck down as invalid. Necessarily, therefore, the order passed by the Appellate Authority viz., the Director general of Shipping is equally invalid. 7. IN the above view of the matter it is unnecessary to examine the correctness of several contentions made in support of the other points and I am not expressing any opinion on them. 8. THE result is, the petition succeeds. The entire proceeding culminating in the order of the appellate authority for cancellation of the registration of the petitioner as a Seaman is quashed. But I make it clear that nothing in my judgment will prevent the concerned authority to proceed afresh against the petitioner, if so advised, in accordance with law. The Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. Let a writ in the nature of mandamus and certiorari issue accordingly.