JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THE facts leading to this petition are these h. Puthu Rao, the Managing Partner of M/s. Sharavathi Rice and flour Mills, Hosanagara is the petitioner before us. On 15th January 1973, he applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga, for a permit to transport 80 quintals of boiled rice from Shimoga to Mangalore. The rice belongs to one B. Ramachandraiah, and the petitioner claims to be a Commission agent. ( 2 ) THE Deputy Commissioner did not. grant the permit. The petitioner, therefore, has preferred the above petition under Article 226 of the constitution, for a writ in the nature of manadamus to the Deputy Commissioner to consider his application for transport permit. During the pendency of this petitin, the Deputy Commissioner issued an endorsement dt. 11th April, 1973 stating thus :"with reference to his petition dt. 15-1-1973 Sri H. Puttu Rao, managing Partner, Sharavathi Rice and Flour Mills, Hosanagara is hereby infomed that his request for grant of an export permit to transport 80-00 quintals of rice from Hosanagara to Mangalore cannot be considered as he is a defaulter. Sd. . . . . . . . . . . Deputy Commissioner, (F and CSD), Shimoga District. " ( 3 ) THE said endorsement does not state the nature of the default committed by the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent it is stated that some investigation is pending against the petitioner on a complaint from the President, Hosanagara Taluk Agricultural produce Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. , and it is further stated that suitable order will be made as soon as the investigation is completed. ( 4 ) THE complaint referred to in the counter-affidavit is that the society had stocked 741 quintals and 33 kgs. of paddy in the petitioner's mill for the purposes of hulling. That quantity of paddy was the levy paddy collected from growers. Out of the said quantity the petitioner has not yet delivered 456 quintals and 99 kgs. of paddy and he is evading to deliver the paddy inspite of several requests. In our opinion, this complaint is not at all relevant for considering the application of the petitioner. It is not stated that the petitioner seeks permit to transport rice which is the yield of the paddy, stored by the President of the said Society. of paddy and he is evading to deliver the paddy inspite of several requests. In our opinion, this complaint is not at all relevant for considering the application of the petitioner. It is not stated that the petitioner seeks permit to transport rice which is the yield of the paddy, stored by the President of the said Society. Assuming that the petitioner has failed to deliver the paddy or rice belonging to the Society, the Deputy Commissioner, if he is competent, can initiate proceedings against the petitioner under relevant Rules and and he cannot make it a ground for withholding permit sought by the petitioner for transportation of rice belonging to one Ramachandriah. The petitioner claims to be the Commission Agent for Ramachandriah. There is no dispute that Ramachandraiah is not the owner of the rice and that he has not surrendered the levy paddy due from him. The endorsement dated 11th April 1973 issued by the Deputy Commissioner that the petitioner is a defaulter and therefore his application cannot be considered is not only vague but also arbitrary. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has asked for a permit under Rule 3 of the Mysore paddy (Regulation of Inter-District Transport) Control Order, 1972. The said Rule provides that 'no person shall transport, attempt to transport, or abet the transport of any paddy from any place within a District' 'to any place in the State outside the District except under and in accordance with a permit issued by the State Government or any officer authorised by it in this behalf. ' the Rule does not lay down any guidance either for the refusal or for the grant of any permit. But, it is expected that the Deputy Commissioner should act in good faith. He must have regard to all relevant considerations and must disregard all irrelevant considerations. He must not seek to promote purposes alien to the letter or the spirit of the provisions of the Rules that give him power to act. He must not act arbitrarily or capriciously. Judged by these principles, we cannot but hold that the action of the Deputy Commissioner in refusing to consider the petitioner's application for the grant of a permit to transport rice from Shimoga to Mangalore is patently arbitrary and cannot be sustained. He must not act arbitrarily or capriciously. Judged by these principles, we cannot but hold that the action of the Deputy Commissioner in refusing to consider the petitioner's application for the grant of a permit to transport rice from Shimoga to Mangalore is patently arbitrary and cannot be sustained. ( 6 ) IN the result, we allow the petition, quash the endorsement dated llth April, 1973, made by the Deputy Commissioner, with a direction to him to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law and within fifteeen days from today. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100. Let a copy of this order be furnished to Sri Mandappa, learned High court Government Pleader, forthwith. --- *** --- .