JUDGMENT O. P. Saxena, J. - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamous directing the respondents to register the petitioner as a Glass Unit as Small Scale industrial Unit and treat it on identical footings regarding the allotment of coal wagons. There is a further prayer for quashing the order dated 2nd August, 1984 passed by the Director of Industries, Kanpur (Annexure 5). 2. Parties have exchanged affidavits and we have heard the learned counsel for the parties at the stage of admission. 3. The first controversy in this case as to whether the petitioner gave the application dated 27th November, 1973, Annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is a photostat copy of the application dated 27th November 1973 given by the petitioner. It was received by Sri S- S. Saxena of the officer of the Assistant Glass Technologist to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Firozabad. It is not disputed that Sri S. P Saxena used to receive such applications. The respondents contention is that Sri S.S. Saxena was transferred from Firozabad and after his transfer, he received some applications fictitiously in a back date. The reason advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents is that had the applications been received by Sri S. S. Saxena in due course of business, it would have been noted in a diary and would have gone through the usual process. If Sri S.S. Saxena was negligent inasmuch as he did complete other formalities, it does not necessarily follow that the received the application in a back date. It is also probable that the received the application of a 30th November but was negligent in not completing the formalities. The real position could be known only after a departmental enquiry. The learned Standing Counsel could not tell if any explanation of Sri S. S. Saxena was called for and any disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him for having received the petitioners application in a backdate. Sri S. S. Saxena continues to be a Government servant and if he has committed an act of gross misconduct, disciplinary action should have been taken against him. If Sri S. S. Saxena received some applications in a back date, there can be no presumption that he also received petitioners application in a back date. Sri S. S. Saxena continues to be a Government servant and if he has committed an act of gross misconduct, disciplinary action should have been taken against him. If Sri S. S. Saxena received some applications in a back date, there can be no presumption that he also received petitioners application in a back date. The presumption under the law is that he received the application on the date its purposes to have been received. In the circumstances of the case and in view of the Annexure to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, we find no merit in the contention that the petitioner gave no application prior to the ban imposed by Director of Industries on registration of new Units in the year 1974. We held that the petitioner gave the application for registration as a Glass Unit on 30-11-1973. 4. The second controversy in this case is regarding discrimination. The petitioners case is that other Unit have been registered after the year 1978 while the petitioners application has been rejected. The petitioner has given the name of 13 Units in para 6 of the petition and 5 Units in para 8 of the petition. In paras 10 and 12 of the supplementary counter affidavit it was contended by the respondents that registration was granted to these Units as they had started functioning prior to the imposition of the ban and had taken of effective steps for establishing themselves. In paras 8 and 9 of the supplementary rejoinder affidavit the petitioner contended that it made various representations and met the officials and pointed out that registration has been granted after 1977. Annexure 7 to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit is the copy of the assessment order of Sales Tax for the years 1981-82 and 82-83. Annexure 4 to the writ petition is a copy of the report submitted by the Assistant Glass Technologist, Firozabad in which it was mentioned that the enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Manager and the factory was found working Copy of the report of the Assistant Manager was enclosed along with the said report. Annexure 3 is the copy of the report of the Assistant Manager who made inspection on 21st April, 1984. Annexure 5 is the impugned order dated 2nd August, 1984 No reason was given for refusing registration to the petitioner as a Glass Unit. 5. Annexure 3 is the copy of the report of the Assistant Manager who made inspection on 21st April, 1984. Annexure 5 is the impugned order dated 2nd August, 1984 No reason was given for refusing registration to the petitioner as a Glass Unit. 5. The material placed on the record leaves no room for doubt that the petitioner also took affective steps to establish itself. The petitioner is carrying on business also and paying sales tax since 1981-82. 6. Public authorities have to function impartially. Every effect has to be made to ensure that there is no discrimination. Sometimes discrimination takes due to a bona fide misconception. The suspicion that the petitioners application was received by the official concerned in a back date may have given rise to this situation. 7. It cannot be said that the petitioners case is distinguishable from that of other Units who nave been registered as Glass Units. It is but proper that the petitioners case is reconsidered by the Director of Industries, Kanpur in a proper perspective 8 We allow the petition and quash the order dated 2nd August, 1984 (Annexure 5) The Director of industries, Kanpur is directed to reconsider the petitioners application for registration as a Glass Unit in the light of the observations made above within two months from the date of service of a Copy of this order. The petitioners application for supply of coal wagons will also be considered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. 9. A copy of the order will be given to the petitioner on payment of usual charges by 12th February, 1985,