JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - The petitioner holds a licence under the U.P. Weights and Meaures (Enforcement) Rules, 1960, for carrying on the repairing work of Weights and Measures in Naini, district Allahabad. The petitioner applied for renewal of its licence for the year 1985. The Assistant Controller of Weights and Measures by his order dated October 9, 1985, refused to renew the petitioners licence. Aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court by means of this petition challenging the aforesaid order. 2. Rule 27 of the U.P. Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules, 1960, confers power on the Controller to grant, renew or refuse to renew or suspend or cancel the licence of a manufacturer or repairer in weights and measures on the ground of want of proper and adequate workshop facilities for staff or incompetency or failure to observe any provisions of the Act or the Rules. The Rule further provides that no such order shall be made without giving the aggrieved person in opportunity of stating his case. The petitioner's grievance is that the Assistant Controller who passed the impugned order did not afford any opportunity to the petitioner for stating its case. In the counter to affidavit it is stated that the Inspector, weights and measures, gave opportunity to the petitioner and on his report the impugn ed order was passed. On the admitted facis the petitioner was heard by an authority which had no power to pass the order refusing to renew the petitioner's licence. The Assistant Controller who was the competent authority to renew the licence never gave any opportunity to the petitioner and as such the order was passed in violation of the statutory provisions contained in Rule 27(3). In this view the impugned order is rendered, illegal and void. 3. Even though the order of the Assistant Controller is being quashed, it is open to the Assistant Controller to hear and decide the petitioner's renewal application afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the Assistant Controller on December 27, 1985, along with its registers and all necessary papers. The Assistant Controller will piss orders on the petitioner's application after hearing it. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the Assistant Controller on December 27, 1985, along with its registers and all necessary papers. The Assistant Controller will piss orders on the petitioner's application after hearing it. It is made clear that no further opportunity will be afforded to the petitioner and it should appear before the Assistant Controller along with its evidence which it may like to produce in reply to the allegations made against it as contained in the counter affidavit and its Annexures of which it is fully aware. 4. In the result, we allow the petition and quash the order dated October 9, 1985. Parties shall bear their own costs.