Judgment :- 1. The petitioner before me is Messrs, Metalika Industries, which is a firm carrying on a manufacturing business in Hyderabad and is hereinafter referred to as the firm. During the years 1967 to 1969, the firm obtained ten ‘actual user’ licences from the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras (hereinafter referred to as the Controller). All these licences were subject to the following conditions: “All items imported under it shall be used only in the licence holders factory at the address shown, in the application against which the licence is issued and no portion thereof will be utilised by the licensee for a unit purpose other than the one for which the licence in question is issued or will be sold or be permitted to be utilised by any other party. The licensee shall maintain proper account of the consumption and utilisation of the goods imported against the licence.” On 31st July 1963, the Controller issued to the firm a notice under Cl. 10 of the Import (Control) Order 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Order), requiring it to show cause within 15 days of receipt thereof as to why action be not taken against its directors and partners under Cl. 8 thereof, so that they be debarred from receiving import licences, customs clearance permits and allotment of imported goods. The charge against the firm was that the goods imported by the firm against the said licences had not been properly utilised, so that the provisions of Cl. 8 of the Order were attracted. The facts on which the order was based were stated in paragraph 2 of the notice thus: “It has come to the notice of the undersigned that the raw material imported against licence No. 1630554 was actually seen by Supervisor of the Office of the Director of industries and Commerce, Hyderabad, on 20th September 1969. To that effect he left his remarks coils seen’ and signed in the production-cum-raw materials register under dated 20th September 1969. This date appears to have been tampered by you as on 10th September 1968. The alteration of date of inspection was significant as there are sale vouchers to say that the finished products were sold by you in Bombay vide Inv. No, 120/2025 dated 20th September 1969 and No. 121/2025 dated 23rd September 1969. This date appears to have been tampered by you as on 10th September 1968. The alteration of date of inspection was significant as there are sale vouchers to say that the finished products were sold by you in Bombay vide Inv. No, 120/2025 dated 20th September 1969 and No. 121/2025 dated 23rd September 1969. Octroi Officials also declared that the goods received under Lorry receipt No. 22344 is S S. Sheets. The CRCA Sheets alleged to have been purchased by you from Andhra Metal Works is a non-existent fictitious firm. Mercantile Transport Co., which alleged transported the CRCA sheets purchased locally to Bombay is also a bogus firm”. The firm replied to the notice through a letter dated 17th August 1973, a typed of which (forming part of the record) covers 8 pages. Numerous facts are stated in that letter in support of the claim of the firm that it had not mis-utilised any of the goods imported by it under the licences above mentioned. The contentions of the firm were rejected by an order dated 17th September 1973, passed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras. That order details the history of the case and goes on to state that in its reply the firm has claimed that its records are properly maintained and has denied that any date appearing in the production-cum-raw material register had been tampered with. The order proceeds to say that the firm was given an opportunity of being heard in person, that its representative confirmed the explanation furnished by it in writing, that the authority passing the order had ‘carefully’ considered the matter and the explanation furnished by the party and has come to the conclusion that: (a) their contention that they have not tampered with the register cannot be accepted; (b) their explanation regarding the question of stainless steel sheets in Octroi sheets cannot be accepted; (c) Andhra Metal works seller of C.R.C.A. sheets and Mercantile Transport Co. are not in existence”. The order then proceeds to inflict on the firm the penalty under Cl. 8 of the order. 2. Aggrieved by the order last mentioned, the firm went up in appeal to the Controller, who reduced the penalty imposed on it, but rejected it otherwise by an order communicated to the firm through a letter dated 13th August 1974. The order then proceeds to inflict on the firm the penalty under Cl. 8 of the order. 2. Aggrieved by the order last mentioned, the firm went up in appeal to the Controller, who reduced the penalty imposed on it, but rejected it otherwise by an order communicated to the firm through a letter dated 13th August 1974. The only part of the letter which may be said to cover the reasoning of the Controller is contained in peragraph 5 thereof, and runs thus- “It has been observe, that in the consumption register maintained by them there are certain changes in the date of inspection, which have not been attested by the concerned Inspector of the Director of Industries in token of his having made the changes. All these changes have not been attested by the concerned Inspector of the D.I., there was reason to believe that the register has been tampered with. The case was examined further in the light of contentions made by the party in their appeal and during the course of personal hearing. Thereafter, the case was submitted for orders to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, being the Appellate Authority”. The firm has now invoked the Writ jurisdiction of this court with a prayer that both the orders be quashed by a writ of certiorari. 3. The only contention raised in support of the petition before me is that the two impugned orders are what are generally described as non-speaking orders, and with this contention fully agree. Apart from giving the history of the case, the two impugned orders state practically no reason whatever for coming to the conclusion that the firm is guilty of mis-utilisation of the goods imported by it under the licences in question. In so far as the order passed by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports is concerned, no part of the process of reasoning by which the conclusion is arrived at appears therein. Practically the same is true of the appellate order in which the only reason given for the rejection of the appeal is that the register maintained by the firm had been tampered with. How a mere tampering with an entry in the register would justify an inference of mis-utilisation of the goods imported by the firm is not apparent from the order. How a mere tampering with an entry in the register would justify an inference of mis-utilisation of the goods imported by the firm is not apparent from the order. The conclusion is irresistible that both the orders suffer from the absence of a statement of the process of reasoning by which the conclusion that the firm was guilty of mis-utilisation of goods was reached. It is not denied on behalf of the Controller that both the orders are quasi-judicial orders and that they cannot be upheld if they are found to be non-speaking orders. 4. In the result, therefore, the petition succeeds and is accepted, the two impugned orders are quashed, with a direction that the proceedings shall be re-held from the stage which they had reached immediately prior to the passing of the order of the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports dated 17th August 1973. The petitioner will have his costs of the proceedings in this court. Counsels fee Rs. 200.