Short Note : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Collector acting under clause 3 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Foodstuffs (Distribution Control) Order, 1960. 2. By an order dated 28-8-1972, the Collector passed an order revoking the appointment as a retail dealer under the order. The order goes on to state that the removal is done because there were complaints of irregularities and corruption against the petitioner. It is also not disputed that no show cause notice was given prior to the giving of this notice nor was the petitioner given any opportunity of showing cause against the removal. The petitioner, therefore, challenges 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. 3. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State contended that the petitioner was not an appointed retailer within the meaning of clause 2 (a) of the Order. The stand taken is that there was an interim arrangement with the Tahsildar who had no authority to appoint him to permit to deal in foodstuffs. Having our considered thought, we do not think that this stand can be borne out by the order passed by the Collector as the order itself indicates that the petitioner was presently dealing in the foodstuffs and it was necessary to remove him. The stand taken appears to us to be an after-thought. If the petitioner was not deemed a dealer under the proviso to clause 3 (1), that is, a dealer who had been dealing in foodstuffs prior to the coming into force of the Order, there was no necessity of removing him by passing an order under clause 3 (2) as has been done. The order itself speaks that the petitioner was dealing in foodstuffs and, therefore, it was expedient to remove him. The order itself speaks that the petitioner was dealing in foodstuffs and, therefore, it was expedient to remove him. It may be that the Collector had not appointed the petitioner but still it is clear that he would be deemed to be a dealer under the proviso to clause 3 (1) if he had been dealing in the foodstuffs prior to coming into force of the order. The position that he had been dealing in the foodstuffs is indirectly admitted by the respondents when they take the stand that he was permitted by the Tahsildar to deal in foodstuffs. The Tahsildar has no power under this order to permit or appoint any-one to be a dealer. It could only be as provided under clause 3 (1) of the Order or not at all. That being the legal position, we think that the contention that he was a deemed dealer appears correct and it was for that reason that the Collector was required to pass an order under clause 3 (2) of the Order. Since neither a notice was given nor any opportunity was given to the petitioner for being heard before terminating his dealership, the order is bad and deserved to be struck down. 1969 JLJ 179 , relied on. Petition allowed.