JUDGMENT S.K. Sarkar, Member. - This is an appeal preferred under Sec. 9 of the U.P. Regulation of Money-Lending Act, 1976, by Sri Jai Chand, against the orders of the Registrar, Money-Lending, Agra, dated February 28, 1977 refusing to grant certificate of registration on the ground that the application did not furnish the required particulars of debts and deposits according to Section 26 of the U.P. Regulation Money-Lending Act, 1976, read with rule 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Sahukari Viniyam Niyamavali, 1976, within the time prescribed under Section 26 of sub-section (1) of the Act. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant made only one argument in the course of appeal. Learned counsel argued that Rule 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Sahukari Viniyam Niyamavali 1976 stipulate that where the registrar refuses to grant a Certificate or to renew it, he should immediately intimate to the applicant in writing the reasons therefor. It this case no compliance of this rule was made. According to learned counsel the meaning of this rule is that where the Registrar, Money-Lending, has any intention of refusing grant of a certificate, before recording an order of such refusal he should intimate the reasons for such intended refusal to the applicant to enable him to show cause against the refusal to grant certificate under Section 7, sub-section (3) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Money-Lending Act, 1976. Since this was not done, the Learned counsel argued that the orders of the learned Registrar, Money-Lending is bad in law and should be struck down in Appeal. 3. I have considered this argument of learned counsel and have gone through the relevant provisions of the law on the subject as laid down in the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Money-Lending Act, 1976, the Uttar Pradesh Sahukari Viniyaman Niyamavali, 1976 and the records of the case. I am afraid, I do not agree with the interpretation of Rule 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Sahukari Viniyaman Niyamavali, 1976 as enunciated by the learned counsel for the appellant. Initial granting of Certificate of Registration or refusing to grant such a Certificate is done by the Registrar, Money-Lending under Section 7, sub-section (3) of the Act. The cancellation and suspension of Certificate of Registration already granted is dealt with under Section 8 of the Act. Initial granting of Certificate of Registration or refusing to grant such a Certificate is done by the Registrar, Money-Lending under Section 7, sub-section (3) of the Act. The cancellation and suspension of Certificate of Registration already granted is dealt with under Section 8 of the Act. Refusal to renew certificate already granted is governed by Section 7, sub-section (4) of the Act, the proviso to sub-section (4) lays down that no order refusing to renew a Certificate shall be passed except after giving to the Money-Lender an opportunity of showing cause. Similarly, the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 8, which relates to cancellation or suspension of a certificate of registration granted under Section 7, lays down that no order cancelling a certificate shall be passed except after giving to the money-lender opportunity of showing cause. It is thus quite clear that an opportunity of showing cause is necessary before an order to renew a Certificate already granted under Section 7(3) is passed by the Registrar or before an order cancelling a Certificate is passed. No such opportunity of showing cause is stipulated by the Act where the grant of Certificate of Registration is refused under Section 7 subsection (3) of the Act or where a Certificate of Registration granted under Section 7 is suspended at any time for sufficient cause. 4. The Act does not contemplate giving to the Money-Lender an opportunity of showing cause before initial grant of a Certificate of Registration. The Rules framed under the Act have to be consistent with the basic provisions of the Act. Rule 9 is, therefore, to be interpreted in a manner which is consistent with the provision of the basis Act for the fulfilment of whose purpose the Rules have been prescribed. Rule 9 speak of intimating in writing the cause of refusal to grant a certificate to the applicant money-lender where grant of such certificate 'is refused'. In view of the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 as discussed above, it would be wrong to interpret this Rule to mean that before refusing to grant a Certificate, an opportunity to show cause should be afforded to Money-Lender against the intended refusal to grant a Certificate Sections 7 and 8(1) of the Act speak of giving an opportunity to show cause before orders are passed refusing to renew a certificate already granted or before cancelling such a Certificate. The Act does not contemplate grant of an opportunity to show cause before the Registrar passes orders refusing to grant a Certificate under Section 7, sub-section (3) of the Act. 5. The principle of natural justice cannot also be invoked for the purpose of grant of an opportunity to show cause before refusing the grant of a Certificate because this principle can be invoked only where the statute itself is silent about the matter. In the present case, the statute is not silent. It is quite specific. It lays down in the provisos to Section 7(4) and 9(1) of the Act that opportunity to show cause would be a precondition only in two types of cases, namely; (1) where the Registrar intends to refuse to renew a Certificate already granted or proposes to cancel such a certificate. So the principle of natural justice also cannot be invoked in this case. 6. The correct interpretation or Rule 9, in the circumstances, would be that where the Registrar decides that a Certificate of Registration should not be granted, he shall intimate the reasons for his action to the appellant Money-Lender at the earliest possible moment after such orders are passed so that he may prefer an appeal against that order under Section 9 of the Act, if so advised, and to enable him to assail those reasons before the Appellate Authority, viz. the registrar General for Money-Lending. In the present case, the order of the District Registrar dated February 22, 1977 through which the District Registrar refused to grant this certificate itself contains the reasons for such refusal, and the intimation on such refusal was given to the Money-Lender the same day the orders were passed and Judgment pronounced because the body of the order itself contains the signatures of the duly engaged counsel for the applicant Money-Lender who represented the applicant Money-Lender before the District Registrar for Money-Lending. This is my opinion is sufficient compliance of Rule 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Sahukari Viniyaman Niyamavali, 1976. 7. The order of the District Registrar passed in the case thus suffers from no illegality, impropriety or lack of jurisdiction. There is thus no merit in the present appeal, which fails, and is hereby dismissed.