JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE petitioner is an association of the shopkeepers, who distribute foodgrains to the ration cardholders at a fair price and for that purpose the collector, Khargone, has allotted them the fair price shops appointing them as retail dealers for distribution of foodstuffs under the M. P. (Khadya Padarth) Sarvajanik Nagrik Purti Vitaran Scheme, 1981. The members of the petitioner-Sangh are working since June 1982 as appointed retail dealers. According to the petitioners, the Collector informed them on 23/24-12-1986 that henceforth they shall not be released quota of the foodstuffs as the State government has decided to appoint the Co-operative Societies as retail dealers, and accordingly the release order for the month of December 1986 was refused. The grievance of the petitioners is that the termination of their dealership is contrary to clause 13 (4) of the Scheme because the order of termination is made without any notice to them. ( 2. ) IN reply to the show cause notice, filed by the State, it has been stated that the Scheme itself provides that all fair price shopkeepers will function as authorised agents of the State Government and" will have no legal right or claim in such appointments. Therefore, there being no right with the petitioners to continue to be retail dealers, they cannot file this writ petition as none of their rights are infringed. It has also been pleaded that out of the petitioners, persons mentioned in clause 1 of the reply have already resigned from their appointments and the resignations have duly been accepted. The very fact that Shri Dandiya, who claims to be the President of the Sangh has resigned goes to show that the sangh is not in existence. Thereafter the names of those persons who have resigned were deleted from the petition. Initially when the petition was filed, Dandiya who is now no more a party to the petition, had sworn an affidavit in support of the petition and thereafter no fresh affidavit was filed by any of the remaining petitioners. ( 3. Thereafter the names of those persons who have resigned were deleted from the petition. Initially when the petition was filed, Dandiya who is now no more a party to the petition, had sworn an affidavit in support of the petition and thereafter no fresh affidavit was filed by any of the remaining petitioners. ( 3. ) THE Government Advocate Shri Sanghi has drawn our attention to two division Bench decisions of this Court in Harikishan and others vs. State and others (M. P. No. 376 of 1985 decided on 10-9-1985 Indore Bench) and Ashok kumar and others vs. State and others (M. P. No. 1172 of 1986 decided on 27-7-1988, Indore Bench), wherein this court has dismissed the petitions of the petitioners in similar circumstances. In Harikishan and others vs. State and others (supra) the court has also considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Olga tellis and others vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation [1985 (3) SCC 454] and placing reliance on the Supreme Court decision reported in AIR 1981 SC 2001 (M. P. Ration Vikreta Sangh Socy. vs. State of M. P.) this court has held that the petitioners are admittedly appointed as agents of the State and have no right to challenge the termination of agency in view of the Scheme framed by the government. The learned counsel Shri T. N. Singh on the other hand has placed reliance on another Division Bench decision of this court in Nandramdas vs. State of M. P. (1987 (1) M. P. Weekly Notes 121), wherein this court has held that the order of termination being in violation of clause 13 (4) of the Scheme formulated for distribution of foodgrains at fair price should be quashed. Reliance has also been placed on the case of Olga Tellis and others vs. Bombay Muncipal Corporation and others ( AIR 1986 SC 180 ). ( 4. ) AFTER carefully going through the judgments cited by the learned counsel for both the parties, we are of the opinion that this petition has no force. Reliance has also been placed on the case of Olga Tellis and others vs. Bombay Muncipal Corporation and others ( AIR 1986 SC 180 ). ( 4. ) AFTER carefully going through the judgments cited by the learned counsel for both the parties, we are of the opinion that this petition has no force. In Olga Tellis and others vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others (supra), it has been held that although a power may be given by any enactment to an authority to dispense with the notice before taking the action in exercise of its powers still that discretion vested in the authority should be exercised in a reasonable manner so as to comply with the constitutional mandate that the procedure accompanying the performance of a public act must be fair and reasonable. The power vested in the Commissioner to act without notice should be exercised sparingly and in cases of urgency which brook no delay. In all other cases, no departure from the audi alteram partem rule (Hear the other side) could be presumed to have been intended. Similarly in nandramdas vs. State of M. P. (1987 (1) M. P. Weekly Notes 121), this court has held that when the dealer was charged with irregularity for not furnishing particulars of essential commodities and lack of good behaviour in his dealings with the cousumers, it was necessary to give him an opportunity of hearing after the show cause notice and, therefore, the order of termination of dealership passed by the authority was in contravention of clause 13 (4) of the Scheme. ( 5. ) AFTER giving an anxious consideration to the aforesaid judgments cited by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that in the instant case it is undisputed that the Scheme was formulated in the year 1981 by the Madhya Pradesh government for distribution of foodstuffs at the fair price shops and in the scheme itself the procedure for allotment of shops and termination of the dealership of the dealers appointed under the Scheme was provided. However, the provision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not attracted to the facts of the present case. In clause 13 of the Scheme the power has been given to the S. D. O. to cancel the licence of any shopkeeper in the event of the violation of any of the conditions of the dealership. However, the provision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not attracted to the facts of the present case. In clause 13 of the Scheme the power has been given to the S. D. O. to cancel the licence of any shopkeeper in the event of the violation of any of the conditions of the dealership. In the case of such a violation a provision has been made in for the issuance of a show cause notice before cancelling the dealership licence. The licences of the petitioners have not been cancelled for violation of any of the permit conditions and, therefore, there is no question of issuing a show cause notice to them asking them to explain their conduct. It is a cardinal principle of jurisprudence and natural justice that when any authority wants to visit any person with any penalty of any type including that of the cancellation of his licence on the ground of any violation of rule, law or condition of licence etc. , his explanation has to be sought giving him an opportunity to place his case before the authority concerned before a final decision by that authority. So that the authority concerned while deciding the question of violation etc. , may have both the sides before him. The petitioners case is a simple case of termination of agency. It is a common ground that the petitioners were the agents of Government distributing the rations to the ration cardholders at fair price shops. Therefore, they were actually acting as agents of the Government. They ofcourse have a fundamental right to carry on the business of foodgrains, if they choose to do so after obtaining the necessary licence under the Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, that right of their vocation and profession has not been taken away by the impugned action of the respondents. The agency of the petitioners has already been discontinued as a result of the policy by which the State has decided to distribute the foodgrains to the ration cardholders through the Co-operative Societies in place of the present petitioners; so they have brought the agency of the petitioners at an end. Whenever an agency is terminated the nature of the agency, its terms and surrounding circumstances must be seen to decide whether a unilateral revocation of the agency is available to the principals. Whenever an agency is terminated the nature of the agency, its terms and surrounding circumstances must be seen to decide whether a unilateral revocation of the agency is available to the principals. In the instant case the agnecy could be terminated by the State at its will. It is only when a particular agent was to be visited with the penalty of termination of his agency that a notice under clause 13 (4) of the Scheme was necessary. Therefore, respectfully agreeing with the view taken by this court in M. P. No. 376 of 1985, we hold that the respondents have not acted arbitrarily in violation of the Scheme formulated for distribution of the foodgrains at the fair price shops and that the petitioners have no fundamental right to run the fair price shops as agents of the government. ( 6. ) THE petition filed by the petitioners is, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.