JUDGMENT Kamleshwar Nath, J. - The petitioner is a licensee for running afair price shop of foodgrains etc. in Mohalla Sheikh Sarai, Sitapur. By an order dated 23.6.1984, Annexure10 to the writ petition, the licence was revoked by the District Magistrate. The order mentions that the District Magistrate purported to act under Para 16 of the Agreement of licence. The matter figured in appeal before the Commissioner of Lucknow Division who, by order dated 10.7.1984, Annexure13 to the Writ petition, dismissed the appeal. 2. This writ petition has been filed to quasli the revocation order contained in Annexure10, as well as the order dismissing the appeal, contained in Annexure13. 3. The ground taken in the writ petition is that the revocation h as been done without giving an opportunity to show cause to the petitioner. Attention is invited by the learned counsel for the petitioner to Paras 16 & 19 of the licence/agreement, Annexure3, which contains the terms and conditions for the grant of the licence. The paras read as follows: 16. The District Magistrate/Town Rationing Officer shall the right to terminate this agreement at any time without assigning any reason therefor. 19. (a) If and whenever there shall be a breach or nonobservance of any of the terms & conditions by the Sugar Retailer hereinbefore contained, then and in any such case the District Magistrate/Town Rationing Officer may notwithstanding the waiver of any previous cause or right, terminate this agreement and forfeit the security deposited by the Retailer. (b) If the District Magistrate/Town Rationing Officer has reason to believe that the Sugar Retailer has committed breach or nonobservance o any of the terms & conditions of this agreement, he may, pending enquiry into the alleged breach or nonobservance, suspend the continued appointment of the Sugar Retailer. The contention is that although the District Magistrate as well as the Commissioner purported to indicate that the order had been passed under Para 16 of the agreement, in substance it is an order under Para 19 and that being so, the licence could not have been revoked without an opportunity to show cause as held by this Court in Special Appeal No. 2 of 1973 (State v. Om Prakash) decided on 13.2.1973 against the decision in writ petition No. 1473 of 1972. 4. 4. The State has filed a counter affidavit and the point raised in the counter affidavit is the same as came up for consideration in the abovementioned Writ Petition/Special Appeal. The contention is that the order had been passed under Para 16 of the agreement. 5. The Commissioner's order, contained in Annexure13 to the writ petition, would show that the District Magistrate revoked the licence without giving any notice to the petitioner. The Commissioner observed that the District Magistrate could pass the impugned order if he was satisfied that the dealer had not complied with the provisions of any rule or had not been carrying on the business of fair price shop in accordance with law. Once the concerned authority went on to examine the question whether there was any contravention of any rule by the licensee or whether the licensee was not carrying on business in the fair price shop in accordance with law, the reason for termination of the licence would fall within the provisions of Para 19 of the agreement. That paragraph clearly visualises an enquiry and there can absolutely be no doubt that in an enquiry person who is likely to face civil consequences, must have an opportunity of hearing. It is wholly immaterial that the exercise of power is purported to be made under Para 16 of the agreement, if on a true construction of the order and the proceedings, it should fall under the provisions of Para 19. In this case the exercise of power by the District Magistrate was affirmed by the Commissioner on the assumption that he was satisfied that the petitioner had violated some rule or was not carrying on business of fair price shop in accordance with law. That being so, the impugned orders are not capable of being sustained because, admittedly, the opportunity to show cause had not been given. 6. This writ petition involved with short matter, referred to above, and has been taken up for disposal on merits, as parties have exchanged affidavits and counter affidavits and agreed to the disposal of the case on merits. 7. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders, contained in Annexure 10 and 13 to the writ petition are quashed. 8. This writ petition involved with short matter, referred to above, and has been taken up for disposal on merits, as parties have exchanged affidavits and counter affidavits and agreed to the disposal of the case on merits. 7. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders, contained in Annexure 10 and 13 to the writ petition are quashed. 8. The opposite parties, nevertheless, will be at liberty to hold an appropriate enquiry in respect of the alleged illegalities or irregularities, if any committed by the petitioner, in accordance with law. (Petition allowed)