ORDER Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - This petition is by a firm known as Messrs Raja Ram Ram Niwas in a small town of Shamli, district Muzaffarnagar, referred hereinafter as the petitioner firm. The petitioner firm is a licencee of the State Government under the U.P. Sugar and Gur Dealers Licencing Order, 1962 hereinafter referred to as the order. The petitioner firm holds a wholesale licence. The licence number is 221. The District Supply Officer, Muzaffarnagar called at the premises of the petitioner firm on 4 September, 1985 to carry out an inspection. The inspection was carried out. Three weeks later i.e. on 30 September, 1985 the petitioner firm received a show cause notice. This show cause notice sets on record the charges against the petitioner firm and required it to submit a reply within seven days. The notice carried a caution that should the reply not be satisfactory, the licence would be cancelled and the security in deposit forfeited. The essence of the five charges were stereotyped. The complaint in the common charges was that certain quantities of sugar sold on different dates did not carry the signature of the purchaser on the cash memos. 2. This show cause notice is the cause upon which the controversy of the present writ petition rests. The charge against the petitioner firm was that it had violated cl. (8) of the conditions of the licence. Thus, before anything else may be examined by this Court it is necessary to see the said cl. (8) of the conditions of the licence. Cl. (8) is reproduced below : " 8& ykblsUl/kkjh izR;sd xzkgd dh ;FkkfLFkfr ,d Bhd Bhd jlhn ;k chtd nsxk] ftlesa mlds ykblsUl/kkjh dk uke vkSj ykblsUl/kkjh ;fn dksbZ gks O;ogkj dk fnukad cspk x;k ifjek.k izfr DohaVy ewY; vkSj yh x;h dqy /kujkf'k nh jgsxh vkSj og nwljh izfr vius ikl jgsxk] tks ykblsUl vf/kdkjh ;k mlds }kjk rnFkZ izkf/kd`r fdlh vf/kdkjh }kjk ekax dh tkus ij fujh{k.k ds fy;s miyC/k jgsxhA " 3. A perusal of cl. (8) reveals that the requirement or obligation to obtain the signatures of the purchaser is conspicuous by its absence. Such a stipulation is just not there. 4. The petitioner submitted his reply on 6 October. 1985 accepting that sugar was sold against each of the cash memos. A perusal of cl. (8) reveals that the requirement or obligation to obtain the signatures of the purchaser is conspicuous by its absence. Such a stipulation is just not there. 4. The petitioner submitted his reply on 6 October. 1985 accepting that sugar was sold against each of the cash memos. It may be set on record that the cash memo, the date on which it was issued, the person who purchased the sugar, the quantity purchased is not in issue. In its reply the firm pleaded that it is a very old firm which has been in business for a very long time and that it did not commit any offence. The firm further submitted on record that should it have committed any offence it seeks forgiveness and further guarantees that the fault will not happen again. The petitioner was seeking forgiveness and giving an assurance for future good conduct for a misdeameanour which was never committed and which the conditions of the licence do not require. 5. The reply, on the show cause notice, of the petitioner was considered by the District Supply Officer, Muzaffamagar. The order of 3-6-1985 places on record that the petitioner firm was intimated that the show cause notice and explanation having been considered the District Supply Officer thought it f it to reject the explanation on 22 November, 1985. This order, now sets on record more charges of which even the petitioner had not been made aware. The additional charges on the petitioner, not given in the show cause notice is that the licence number or the signature of the purchaser was not on the cash memo. The punishment for this was that the security of the petitioner was forfeited. The security was Rs. 1000/-. The licence No. 221 was cancelled. The business of the petitioner, thus, ceased. 6. The petitioner sought an appeal before the learned Commissioner. The learned Commissioner dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was belated and the charges against the petitioner were serious. No reasons are on record why the charges against the petitioner have been sustained nor did the Commissioner give himself an opportunity to discern that there was no nexus between the charges alleged against the petitioner and the condition as set in clause (8) of the licence which was alleged to have been violated. No reasons are on record why the charges against the petitioner have been sustained nor did the Commissioner give himself an opportunity to discern that there was no nexus between the charges alleged against the petitioner and the condition as set in clause (8) of the licence which was alleged to have been violated. Learned Commissioner rejected the appeal of the petitioner firm on 18 May, 1987. This has occasioned the filing of the present petition. For about two years. this petitioner firm has not been able to transact business. 7. This Court has examined the matter in its entirety and heard learned counsel for the petitioner in detail as also learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh. 8. After having examined the charge against the petitioner and the conditions of the licence, aforesaid, which he is alleged to have violated and the order of the District Supply Officer dated 22 November,1985 and the learned Commissioner dated 18 May, 1987, this Court feels that the petitioner firm had been wrongly charged in the show cause notice, which was served upon it. The show cause notice is writ large with errors which are manifest and apparent. There is no condition in Cl. (8) which requires the signature of the purchaser. 'Thus, there can be no misdemeanour by the petitioner firm for violating clause (8),aforesaid. There is no condition which requires the setting of the licence number of the purchaser of the cash memo. 9. This case is an exercise which reveals arbitrariness of bureaucracy and its power to embrass an honest trader. For no cause, the business of a trader was brought to a grinding halt against a charge which had never been committed. The trader ran to seek redress through an audio procedure to persuade the District Supply Officer and the learned Commissioner in a statutory appeal that he was being charged on a non existent condition in the licence. But the business of the petitioner was hung for an accusation which could not and never was an offence. 10. Merely allowing the petition is hardly going to mitigate the circumstance nor provide justice to the petitioner firm when it has had to suffer (a) forfeiture of security, (b) cessation of its business. But the business of the petitioner was hung for an accusation which could not and never was an offence. 10. Merely allowing the petition is hardly going to mitigate the circumstance nor provide justice to the petitioner firm when it has had to suffer (a) forfeiture of security, (b) cessation of its business. It was suggested by learned Standing Counsel for the State candidly and fairly that in so far as the order is concerned, it may be quashed by this Court, simpliciter. This Court would have done it if merely by allowing the petition would have secured' justice. Bureaucratic arbitrariness if remedied under the procedure established by law, puts a semblance of faith in a system of trade fraught with controls by the State. Two tiers of redress procedures of the licensing system eluded the right to be heard in accord with law. The District Supply Officer received the representation but would not care to see that an offence was illusory and no condition of the licence was violated. A hope that the learned Commissioner would grant redress faded when the latter endorsed the cancellation of the license the statutory appeal was an exercise in futility. 11. In the circumstances, such as these, it is normal for the State Government to cause an inspection of the business under a licence. A fault by a trader dealing in essential commodities need not be shown latitude and the court would be slow in interfering. But on the other hand if the State exceeds its limits inasmuch as making a charge which cannot be made, as has happened in this case, this is harassment by State action. It affects the smooth operation of a licensing system and the public distribution system. 12. A scrutiny of the record which is before the Court reveals, as observed before, that the transaction is recorded on the cash memos. The date, the party to whom the commodity was sold, the item which was sold, the quantity which was sold is not in issue. It was even crosschecked on yet another inspection that the quantity had been sold to an identifiable purchaser. Shamli, is a small town and it is not the contention of the State that the dealer was not identifiable. Thus, regard being had to the totality of circumstances, the petition must be allowed. It was even crosschecked on yet another inspection that the quantity had been sold to an identifiable purchaser. Shamli, is a small town and it is not the contention of the State that the dealer was not identifiable. Thus, regard being had to the totality of circumstances, the petition must be allowed. The order of the District Magistrate dated 11 November, 1985 occasioning the consequential order dated 22 November, 1985 of the District Supply Officer, Muzaffarragar (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) and the order of the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, dated 18 May, 1987 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) are quashed and set aside. 13. The respondents are directed to refund the security of Rs. 1000/- along with interest @ 12%, renew the licence of the petitioner firm on an application being made, if it has not already been made. 14. This Court felt that in a mattes sue as this where the licence has been cancelled without cause which has occasioned t cessation of the business of a trader or a businessman, only damages will mitigate the loss suffered in not being able to do business and loss of reputation for cancellation of the licence when there was no fault. For the loss which the petitioner may have suffered in cessation of business, injury in reputation in society and business for violating the conditions of the licence when such was not the case, an action for damages may be sought to quantify the amount by a suit before a Court of appropriate jurisdiction. Limitation will run from the date of this order. 15. This writ petition is allowed, with costs which will stand, in the circumstances at Rs. 500/- (rupees five hundred only).