Short Note : 1. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was directed against the Collector acting under clause 3 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Food Stuffs (Distribution Control) Order, 1960. The petitioner challenged the order on the ground that under clause 3 (2) the Collector was enjoined before removing a dealer from the dealership to give him an opportunity of showing, cause against the purported removal and to record reasons in writing why such removal was made. Held : It would appear from the language used in sub-clause (2) of clause (3) that the provision is mandatory and it is necessary that the dealer was given an opportunity of being heard before he was removed. It was further necessary that reasons are recorded in writing why the order removing him was made. Sukhlal v. Collector, District Satna, AIR 1969 MP 176 relied on. Petition allowed.