(1) SPECIAL leave is granted. (2) CHALLENGE in this appeal is as to the rejection of the appellantS writ petition by the High court where he had disputed the cancellation of his license granted under the Insecticides Act, 1968. (3) THE short facts which are no more in dispute are these : The appellant had a dealerS license under the Act to deal in insecticides. The Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur, cancelled this license by order dated 15/07/1982, on the finding that the appellant was in possession of misbranded insecticides and had kept the same for sale and thus one of the conditions of the license had been violated and such violation authorised cancellation of the license. The Public Analyst made a report that the stock contained in the tin was misbranded inasmuch as against the requirement of 25 per cent of W/W, the Oxydemston Methyl content was 27.6 per cent. The appellant had taken the stand before the authority and the High court that he had purchased a full tin from the authorised distributor and the tin had indication on it that the contents were within the prescribed limit of 25 per cent. When the tin was recovered from the shop the seal had not been tampered with. According to him the protection available under S. 30(3 of the Act was avail- able to him and he was not responsible for the misbranding. (4) THE High court took the view that by enacting Ss. (1 of Section 30 of the Act, Parliament had taken out the element of menS rea from consideration and, therefore, knowledge was not at all material. AppellantS counsel has argued that protection of Ss. (3 is avail able not only to prosecutions but also to every contravention of the Act and corder of the High court and the authorities and restore the licence. The appeal is disposed accordingly. No costs.