JUDGMENT V. Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. This writ petition has been brought by a partnership firm doing business at Calicut as General Merchants and Commission Agents in the name and style "Hajee M. K. Cheria Mammoo & Co." The petitioner firm has been dealing in food grains, sugar, groceries etc. from the year 1954 and it was being granted licences to deal in food grains under the successive licensing orders passed by the State Government from time to time. 2. The 1st respondent District Collector, Calicut is the licensing authority in respect of wholesale licences under the Kerala Food grains Dealers' Licensing Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Licensing Order). On 29-3-1972 the petitioner firm submitted before the 1st respondent its application for renewal of the wholesale licence issued to it under the Licensing Order for the year 1972-73. By a notice dated 27-11-1972. Ex. P2 the 1st respondent informed the petitioner that its application for renewal of the licence could not be considered favourably as one of the partners of the petitioner firm is a partner in a firm by name "M/s. Haji M. K. Cheria Mammoo & Bros." which is an authorised wholesale distributor appointed under the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 at Kalpetta in South Wynad Taluk. The petitioner was directed to show cause in writing within seven days of the receipt of the said notice as to why its renewal application should not be rejected. In response to Ex. P2 the petitioner submitted a detailed representation as per Ex. P3 dated the 6th December, 1972 pointing out that the petitioner firm had no connection with Messrs. Haji M. K. Cheria Mammoo & Bros. which is a totally distinct entity carrying on trade at a place fifty miles away from Calicut and that there was, therefore, no justification at all in denying to the petitioner a renewal of the licence granted to it under the Licensing Order. It was submitted in Ex. P3 that the petitioner had been holding the wholesale dealer's licence continuously from 1954 onwards and had been conducting its business strictly in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations and had a clean record unblemished by any manner of objection or complaint. The petitioner also submitted in Ex. P3 that there was absolutely no warrant for the assumption made by the District Collector in the notice Ex. The petitioner also submitted in Ex. P3 that there was absolutely no warrant for the assumption made by the District Collector in the notice Ex. P2 that the renewal of the licence in the petitioner's favour will not be in the interests of the general public. Besides the fact that the petitioner firm had no connection with Messrs. Haji M. K. Cheria Mammoo & Bros. doing business at Kalpetta, the petitioner laid stress on the circumstance that the nature of the business conducted by the two firms was also different since the petitioner was dealing only in open market rice brought into the State on the basis of no objection certificate issued by the department whereas the firm at Kalpetta was functioning only as an authorised wholesale distributor getting its stocks from the Government depots and selling only to permit holders. In these circumstances it was submitted by the petitioner in Ex. P3 that it was totally unreasonable to think that the circumstance that the other firm was functioning as an authorised wholesale distributor under the Kerala Rationing Order at a place fifty miles away from Calicut would render the grant of a renewal of the petitioner's licence under the Licensing Order prejudicial to the public interest. Lastly, it was submitted in Ex. P3 that even if for any reason it was considered by the District Collector that it was not proper to permit the two different firms to concurrently function in their respective fields the only proper and permissible course to be adopted was to cancel the authorisation given under the Kerala Rationing Order to the firm at Kalpetta which action would amount only to the termination of its appointment as an agent of the Government and there was no warrant for denying to the petitioner its fundamental right to carry on business in open market rice by refusing to renew its licence under the Licensing Order. After receipt of the aforesaid explanation from the petitioner the 1st respondent passed the order Ex. P4 dated 19-2-1973 rejecting the petitioner's application for renewal, in purported exercise of his powers under Clause.7 of the Licensing Order. The petitioner has come up with this writ petition seeking to quash Ex. P4. 3. After receipt of the aforesaid explanation from the petitioner the 1st respondent passed the order Ex. P4 dated 19-2-1973 rejecting the petitioner's application for renewal, in purported exercise of his powers under Clause.7 of the Licensing Order. The petitioner has come up with this writ petition seeking to quash Ex. P4. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the District Collector in passing the impugned order has not applied his independent mind and given any reasons of his own as to why it will not be in the interests of the general public to grant the petitioner's application for renewal. It is urged that the District Collector has merely carried out the directive given to him by the State Government in a letter dated 6-11-1972 that all applications for renewal of licences to deal in open market rice received from firms whose partners are partners of other firms which have been appointed as authorised wholesale distributors under the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 should be rejected. Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that in the absence of any provision in the Licensing Order authorising the imposition of such a restriction or ban, the State Government had no power to issue such an executive instruction to the licensing authority, thereby fettering the exercise of the statutory discretion conferred on the licensing authority under the provisions of the Licensing Order. It was strongly contended that the petitioner has a fundamental right to carry on business in open market rice and that restrictions, if any, on the exercise of such right can be imposed only by a "law" and not by executive orders passed by the State Government which have no statutory backing. Counsel submitted, alternatively, that, in any event, in imposing a blanket ban on the grant of renewals of licences under the Licensing Order to firms the partners of which are partners of other firms appointed as authorised wholesale distributors under the Kerala Rationing Order, a wholly arbitrary and unreasonable restriction has been placed on the exercise of the fundamental right under Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution and the Government directive is, therefore, illegal and void. 4. For a proper appreciation of the contentions raised in the case it is necessary to extract the full text of the impugned order Ex. P4. 4. For a proper appreciation of the contentions raised in the case it is necessary to extract the full text of the impugned order Ex. P4. It reads: "Hajee M. K. Cheriya Mammoo & Company, General Merchants and Commission Agents, Big Bazaar, Calicut have applied for the renewal of their food grain dealers licence No. 23/KDE standing in their name as per the ref. 1st cited. It is ascertained that one of the partners of the firm, M/s. M. K. Cheriya Mammoo & Company is a partner in the firm M/s. M. K. Cheriya Mammoo & Brothers which is an AWD in S. Wynad Taluk. The Government in their letter No. 13092/A4/72/ Fd.D dated 6-11-1972 have ordered that renewal application received from AWDs appointed under Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 or their partners to deal in open market rice may be rejected. Therefore, a show cause notice as contemplated in Clause.7 of the K.F.D.L. Order, 1967 has been issued to the licensee to explain as to why their renewal application should not be rejected. As their explanation is not found satisfactory and on their request a personal hearing has been posted on 15-1-1973. The counsels of the applicants represented M/s. M. K. Cheria Mammoo & Co. stated that the restriction applies only to partners in their individual capacity and also to firm even if the partners are common. He has further stated that the restriction shall not apply to the dealer institution. He has further argued that the restriction affects the right to the trade. ORDER Heard and perused the. records. The contention of counsel that the restriction applies only to partners in their individual capacity is not correct as Government in their letter No. 4843/A4/72/Fd.D dated 29-5-1972 have banned the issue of the licence I to firm, the partners of which are partners of ARDs/AWDs to deal in open market rice and rationed rice directly or indirectly. The contention that the restriction will not apply to their firm is not correct as one of the partners of this firm is an AWD and the grant and renewal of a licence will effect the same result. In view of the Government directions the applications received from M/s. M. K. Cheria Mammoo & Co., for the renewal of the licence No. 23/KDE cannot be granted. The renewal application is rejected. In view of the Government directions the applications received from M/s. M. K. Cheria Mammoo & Co., for the renewal of the licence No. 23/KDE cannot be granted. The renewal application is rejected. The licensee should dispose of the stock available with them within 1 week. This order is issued under Clause.7 of the K.F.D.L.O. 1967". A mere perusal of the above order of the Collector is sufficient to show that the rejection of the petitioner's application for renewal is based solely on the directive issued by the State Government in its letter dated 29-5-1972 banning the grant of renewals of licences under the Licensing Order to firms, the partners of which are partners of any other firm appointed as an authorised wholesale distributor under the Kerala Rationing Order. It is further seen from the said order that the District Collector has refused the petitioner's application for renewal in purported exercise of the power conferred on him under Clause.7 of the Licensing Order. That provision is in the following terms: "Power to refuse licence: The licensing authority may, in the interest of the general public and for reasons to be recorded in writing and after giving the dealer concerned an opportunity of stating his case, refuse to grant, reissue or renew a licence". In as much as Clause.7 confers on the licensing authority the power to pass an order affecting rights of parties after conducting a hearing the said function is clearly quasi-judicial in character. In exercising the said power the licensing authority has to act in the exercise of its independent judgment on the basis of an application of its mind to the materials available before it, including the representations made by the dealer concerned, to whom an opportunity is required to be given to state his case. It is empowered to refuse the application for renewal only if, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, it comes to conclusion that it is necessary in the interests of the general public to refuse the application for renewal. It is needless to say that in arriving at such finding a quasi judicial authority cannot act under the dictation of an administrative superior nor is it permissible to fetter the statutory discretion of the licensing authority by the issuance of any executive directive by the State Government. It is needless to say that in arriving at such finding a quasi judicial authority cannot act under the dictation of an administrative superior nor is it permissible to fetter the statutory discretion of the licensing authority by the issuance of any executive directive by the State Government. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in B. Rajagopala Naidu v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras and others, AIR 1964 SC 1573 , it is a basic and elementary postulate of the rule of law that in exercising their authority and discharging their quasi judicial functions Tribunals or authorities constituted under the statute must be left absolutely free to deal with the matter according to their best judgment. It is of the essence of fair and objective administration of law that the decision of a Tribunal must be absolutely unfettered by any extraneous guidance by the executive or administrative wing of the State. If the exercise of the discretion conferred on a quasi judicial body is controlled by any such direction, the presence of such fetters would make the exercise of such authority completely inconsistent with the well accepted notions of judicial process. No doubt the scope of the jurisdiction of Tribunals and authorities constituted by a statute can well be regulated by the statute or the rules made thereunder and the principles for guidance of the said Tribunals or authorities may be prescribed subject of course to the inevitable requirement that these provisions should not contravene the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. But what may legitimately be done by the Statute and the rules cannot, however, be permitted to be done by administrative or executive orders. 5. It is admitted that there is no specific provision in the Licensing Order which warrants the imposition of a ban on the renewal of licences of firms the partners of which happen to be partners of some other firm which has been appointed as authorised wholesale distributor under the Rationing Order. In such circumstances the action of the State Government in issuing an executive instruction to the licensing authority by its letter dated 29-5-1972 amounts to the imposition of an unauthorised fetter on the statutory discretion of a statutory quasi judicial authority and is illegal. In passing the impugned order Ex. In such circumstances the action of the State Government in issuing an executive instruction to the licensing authority by its letter dated 29-5-1972 amounts to the imposition of an unauthorised fetter on the statutory discretion of a statutory quasi judicial authority and is illegal. In passing the impugned order Ex. P4 the licensing authority has merely purported to implement the directive issued by the State Government without independently applying its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and arriving at its own conclusions on the relevant aspects indicated in Clause.7. The conclusion is there fore inevitable that there has not been a proper and valid disposal by the 1st respondent of the application for renewal filed by the petitioner. 6. The licensing authority is empowered under Clause.7 of the Licensing Order to refuse the renewal of a licence only if, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, it has arrived at the conclusion that it is necessary to do so in the interests of the general public. In as much as no such finding has been recorded by the licensing authority in the order Ex. P4 its action in refusing the petitioner's application for renewal was not warranted under the provisions of Clause.7 and was without jurisdiction. 7. The petitioner is also well founded in his contention that the imposition by the Government of a total ban on the renewal of licences of firms, the partners of which happen to be connected with some other firm which has been appointed as an authorised wholesale distributor under the Kerala Rationing Order constitutes an arbitrary restriction on the exercise of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Every citizen has a fundamental right to carry on, either individually or in partnership with others, trade in open market rice subject to any law imposing reasonable restrictions in the interests of general public. No statutory provision or rule has been brought to my notice by the counsel appearing for the respondents which even indirectly lays down that a firm shall be disentitled to the grant of the renewal of its licence under the Licensing Order in case any of its partners happens to be a partner of another firm which has been appointed as an authorised wholesale distributor under the Kerala Rationing Order. While it is possible to conceive of individual instances where the circumstances relating to a particular dealer may be such that his intimate connection with a wholesale ration depot in the same locality or its nearabouts may constitute a relevant factor for the purpose of determining whether it will be in the public interest to grant him a renewal of his licence under the Licensing Order, the imposition of a blanket ban on the renewal of licences of all firms, the partners of which are also partners in firms appointed as wholesale ration distributors is, in my view, arbitrary and unreasonable. If the Government decides as a matter of policy that authorised wholesale distributors appointed under the Rationing Order should not be permitted to have any connection with dealings in open market rice, the proper course to be adopted by it is to impose such a restriction in regard to the grant of the authorisation or licence under the Rationing Order. While no citizen has a right to claim that he should be appointed as an authorised distributor under the Rationing Order the position is entirely different in regard to the grant of licences to carry on trade in open market rice under the Licensing Order as it involves a fundamental right guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution. As already observed, any restriction or fetter on such fundamental right can be imposed only by "law" and cannot be done by a mere executive order or instruction. 8. On the facts of this case it is also difficult to see how it can be reasonably said that the grant of a renewal of the licence to the petitioner firm can be regarded as prejudicial to the interest of the general public on the ground that one or more partners of the petitioner firm happened to be partners in another firm which has been appointed as an authorised wholesale distributor at Kalpetta which is a place fifty miles away from Calicut. The 1st respondent's action in denying to the petitioner a renewal of his licence on the aforesaid ground cannot but be held to be wholly arbitrary and unwarranted by the terms of Clause.7 of the Licensing Order. 9. I therefore allow this writ petition and quash Ex. P4. The 1st respondent's action in denying to the petitioner a renewal of his licence on the aforesaid ground cannot but be held to be wholly arbitrary and unwarranted by the terms of Clause.7 of the Licensing Order. 9. I therefore allow this writ petition and quash Ex. P4. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to grant the petitioner forthwith a renewal of the licence issued to it under the Licensing Order. The parties will bear their respective costs.