JUDGMENT R.L. Gulati, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on the business of sale and purchase of Foodgrains at Orai. It is a licensed dealer under the U.P. Foodgrain Dealers Licencing Order, 1964, and holds a licence, besides in Form B, in Form F which authorises it to carry on the business as a commission agent. The petitioner is a purchasing agent of the Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Lucknow. It appears that the Senior Marketing Inspector, Orai, the second respondent, made a complaint against the petitioner to the Regional Food Controller, Kanpur, the first respondent, that the petitioner was purchasing Foodgrains at a lower price and was supplying the same to the Food Corporation of India at a higher price. The petitioner received a notice from the Regional Food Controller, Kanpur, saying that the petitioner had purchased certain quantity of wheat as per Bill No. 642/5 which showed that the petitioner was purchasing wheat on behalf of the Food Corporation of India at lower rates and supplying the same to the Corporation at a higher rate, thus contravening the provisions contained in Sec. 4 (3) of the U.P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964, and condition No. 5 of the licence in Form F. The petitioner denied having entered into any such transaction. However, the explanation of the Petitioner was not found satisfactory and the Regional Food Controller by his order dated May 24, 1971 cancelled the licence of the petitioner in Form F. This order of the Regional Food Controller has been challenged in this petition. 3. From the counter-affidavit of Ram Chandra Singh, who is the Senior Marketing Inspector, Orai, district Jalaun, it appears that the charge against the petitioner was that the petitioner had purchased on April 23, 1971, about six bags of wheat belonging to Dhani Ram through the third respondent M/s. Bal Krishna Maheshwari, Kachcha Arhatia, at the rate of Rs. 65/- per quintal although the rate prescribed by the Food Corporation of India during that period was Rs. 71/- per quintal in respect of that quantity of wheat. 65/- per quintal although the rate prescribed by the Food Corporation of India during that period was Rs. 71/- per quintal in respect of that quantity of wheat. In Paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit it has further been stated that upon enquiry from the petitioner by the Senior Marketing Inspector, it was disclosed by the petitioner that the what in question had been purchased on behalf of the Food Corporation of India. In Paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit it has further been stated the petitioner was not entitled to purchase Foodgrains at prices higher or lower from those prescribed by the Food Corporation of India. On these facts the petitioner's licence has been cancelled. 4. Assuming that what has been stated in the counter-affidavit is correct, it is difficult to understand in what way the petitioner has contravened Sec. 4 (3) of the Licencing Order or condition No. 5 of the licence. Sec. 4 (3) merely says that every licence issued or reviewed under this Order shall be in Form B in the case of wholesalers, in Form D in the case of retailers and in Form F in the case of Commission Agents. Likewise, Form F merely contains the name and address of the licensed dealer and requires that the food-grain shall not be stored in a place other than the place specified in the licence and the licenced dealer shall maintain record of the transactions entered into by him. Condition No. 5 of this Form which is alleged to have been violated by the petitioner reads :- "The licensee shall not contravene the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964, or any other order relating to food-stuffs issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act No. X of 1955)." Nothing has been stated in the impugned order, nor indeed in the counter-affidavit, as to how the petitioner has contravened any of the provisions of the U.P. Foodgrains Dealers Licencing Order or any order relating to food-stuffs issued under the Essential Commodities Act. The relationship between the petitioner and the Food Corporation of India is contractual. The relationship between the petitioner and the Food Corporation of India is contractual. If under the contract the petitioner is entitled to charge only a commission and not the difference in price from the Food Corporation of India and if the petitioner contravened that condition, it does not commit any breach of the U.P. Foodgrains Licensing Order or of the Essential Commodities Act nor does it commit any breach of any of the conditions of its licence in Form F. At the most the petitioner can be said to have committed a breach of the contract. But a breach of contract does not come within the mischief of the licencing order or under the Essential Commodities Act. In my opinion, neither the Senior Marketing Inspector, nor the Regional Food Controller are in any way concerned with the course of business between the petitioner and the Food Corporation of India. If the petitioner commits any breach of the contract, it may be liable to damages or to any other action at the hands of its principals, but certainly no action can be taken against it under the U.P. Foodgrains Dealers Licencing Order, 1964. 5. That apart in the instant case I find no evidence to show that the petitioner committed any breach of the contract. Assuming that the petitioner purchased wheat at the rate of Rs. 65/- per quintal, there is nothing to show that he supplied the same wheat to the Food Corporation of India at Rs. 71/- per quintal. Merely purchasing wheat at a price lower than the price authorised by the Food Corporation of India does not amount to any breach of contract. The price authorised by the Corporation is only the maximum price and it would be open to every purchasing agent to make purchases at lower price. That would be to the benefit of the Corporation. So long as the purchasing agent does not appropriate the difference in price to himself, of which there is no evidence at all in the instant case, I do not think that the Corporation can have any objection. In my opinion the action taken by the respondent against the petitioner is thoroughly misconceived. 6. The petition is accordingly allowed with costs. The order of the Regional Food Controller, Kanpur, dated May 24, 1971 is quashed.