BHAGAWATI PRASAD BANERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner moved this writ application against an order dated 25-7-88 under Memo. No. 2687 passed by the Sub-Divisional Controller of Food and Supplies, Alipore, whereby the M. R. allotment in favour of the petitioner has been suspended and the petitioner was directed to show cause why the M. R. Dealership should not be terminated. ( 2 ) THE relevant fact of this case is that the petitioner was appointed as Modified Ration Dealer under agreement entered into by and between the petitioner and the Government of West Bengal and on the basis of which the petitioner was carrying on the business of M. R. dealership which was engaged in distribution of Rice, Wheat, Sugar and R. S. Oil to the consumers as per allotment made by the Inspector (Food and Supplies), Joynagar II. The petitioner was appointed as Modified Ration Dealer in the year 1957 and since then was carrying on the said business. The relevant provisions of the said agreement are as follows:-"the Retailer immediately on receipt of the quantity of the foodstuffs /essential commodities obtained by him from the godowns of authorised agents or Distributors or registered firms shall enter the same in appropriate stock register to be maintained by the Retailer in the form as may from time to time be prescribed to be maintained by him in this behalf and shall not make unauthorised transfer, despatch or movement of the same or part thereof, elsewhere out of the shop of the Retailer and/or godowns. The retailer shall at all reasonable times produce such register for inspection by an officer of the Government authorised in that behalf. The Retailer shall also maintain in the form as may be prescribed from time to time a register of individual Ration cards/permits, daily sales register and non-drawal register which should be made up-to-date at the end of such day and also issue case memos to the consumers. The Retailer shall at all reasonable time produce such register for inspection by any officer authorised by the Government in that behalf. The District Magistrate, or the controller, with the approval of District Magistrate, without assigning any reason and without prejudice to the rights and remedies of the Govt. The Retailer shall at all reasonable time produce such register for inspection by any officer authorised by the Government in that behalf. The District Magistrate, or the controller, with the approval of District Magistrate, without assigning any reason and without prejudice to the rights and remedies of the Govt. against the Retailer may suspend supply of foodstuffs and essential commodities to the Retailer forthwith of foodstuffs and after giving the Retailer an opportunity of stating his case in writing cancel this agreement if in the opinion of the District Magistrate/controller which shall be final, the Retailer has failed to observe, fulfil or perform any of the terms and conditions on the part of the Retailer herein contained or to carry out or observe any direction given to the Retailer under the provisions of the this agreement. Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, the District Magistrate or the controller, as the case may be, shall at any time be at liberty in his sole discretion without assigning any reason to terminate this agreement on giving one month notice in writing on his intention so to terminate the agreement and the Retailer shall have no claim for loss or damages on that account against the Government and the Retailer shall also be at liberty to terminate the agreement after giving similar notice as aforesaid. " ( 3 ) THE petitioner stated that for so many years the petitioner was carrying on the said business and there was no complaint and/or allegation against the petitioner. At para 10 of the application it was stated that on 27/05/1988 after 5 p. m. , when the shop was going to be closed for the day and the petitioner and the employees were recording the day's transaction in the Registers and Book of Accounts and Daily Sale Register and Cash Memos, the Inspecting Squad attached to the office of the District Controller (Food and Supplies) visited the petitioner's shop and wanted the petitioner to produce the Registers and Stock Book and proposed to varify the stock. The petitioner then and there produced the registers for verification of the Inspecting Squad. But it is stated that the said Inspecting Squad looked at a glance the Stock Register and after inspection of the same put a remark in the said register "you are directed to maintain your stock register properly and left the place". The petitioner then and there produced the registers for verification of the Inspecting Squad. But it is stated that the said Inspecting Squad looked at a glance the Stock Register and after inspection of the same put a remark in the said register "you are directed to maintain your stock register properly and left the place". After the said incident on 11/07/1988 the petitioner went to the office of the Inspector (Food and Supplies), Joynagar II, for getting regular allotment for the weeks and that after going there the petitioner came to know that no allotment of M. R. Commodities was made as per order by Sub-Divisional Controller (Food and Supplies) and as it was stated that the show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner and the Ration Card which was registered to the petitioner's shop had been deleted and tagged with a nearest M. M. Dealer temporarily. It was stated that the petitioner did not get the notice and no notice was served upon the petitioner and as such, the petitioner requested the said authority to furnish a copy of the notice, but the Inspector did not accede to the said request of the petitioner, whereafter the petitioner took up the matter with Secretary Joynagar and Kultoli P. S. M. R. Dealers' Association who handed over the said Memo No. 2687 dated 3/07/1988 issued by the Sub-Divisional Controller (Food and Supplies) Alipore (Sadar), South 24-Parganas, whereby the said Sub-Divisional Controller (Food and Supplies) on the basis of the report dated 27-5-88 submitted by the said inspecting Squad stated that the petitioner did not kept open the shop during the shop hours and did not maintain stock register properly. On the basis of the show cause notice the petitioner was directed to show cause why the said dealership should not be cancelled. It is necessary to set out the said show cause notice for proper understanding the matter which is as follows it appears from the report of Inspecting Squad of DCF and C on 27-5-88 that you do not open your shop during the shop hours and you do not maintain the stock Register properly. There was no sign board infront of your M. R. Shop. Thereby you have contravened. So, in view of above, it is clear that you have voilated the clauses 6 and 7 of the agreement executed by you with Govt. There was no sign board infront of your M. R. Shop. Thereby you have contravened. So, in view of above, it is clear that you have voilated the clauses 6 and 7 of the agreement executed by you with Govt. In the circumstances, I the SCF and S, Alipore (S) the appointing Authority, with the approval of SDC (S) Alipore do hereby suspend the MR Allotment in favour of you. You are also directed to show cause as to why your MR Dealership not be terminated as per Clause of the aforesaid agreements. Your reply to the show Cause must reach to the undersigned within 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of this order. " ( 4 ) IN the said show cause notice the first allegation against the petitioner was that the petitioner did not open the shop during the office hours and did not maintain stock registers properly and the other allegation was that no sign board was in front of the said shop. The action was proposed to be taken for the alleged violation of Clauses 6 and 7 of the said Agreement. but the termination was proposed in terms of the same clause which was kept blank in the show cause notice. ( 5 ) THE relevant records were produced by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. From the same it appears that one Gopal Haldar, Inspector of Food and Supplies and Mrinal Kanti Haldar, Sub-Inspector of Food and Supplies had visited as many as seven shops on 27-5-88 as per verbal order dated 24-5-88 and so far as the petitioner's shop is concerned, the said report states, "the said MR shop was not open during shop hours. There was no sign board in front of MR shop, but the MR dealer was present there. He produced the stock books but it was not properly maintained". From the said Report it also appears that Mr. Halder had also visited MR Dealer shop belonging to one Mahadeb Naskar where it was found that the said shop was closed during office hours. No customer or any person was not available during the inspection and there was no sign board in front of the said shop. Similar allegation was there in respect of the other shops mentioned in the application. No customer or any person was not available during the inspection and there was no sign board in front of the said shop. Similar allegation was there in respect of the other shops mentioned in the application. But one thing is clear in respect of the other shops which were found closed, it was mentioned that nobody could be found out during such inspection. On the basis of the said report the impugned show cause notice had been issued by the Sub-Divisional Controller (Food and Supplies ). In the writ petition the petitioner stated that no notice was served upon the petitioner and that the action taken was uncalled for in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner had clearly stated that the petitioner was maintaining the records and the registers properly but the Inspecting Squad only on a quick look at the register could not point out what was the defect in maintaining the registers and records. It was further stated that the shop was open and remained open on all days as required and unless the shop was open and the petitioner was present, how it was possible to examine the account books. There is no specific allegation that anybody has made an allegation and that from the report itself it is clear that MR Dealer was present there and he produced stock book. If the MR Dealer was present and produced stock book, in that event, it is difficult to understand how the allegation that the shop was closed during shop hours could be there. From the report it appears that in respect of other shops similar reports were submitted but other shops were closed. From one case it appears that the shop was closed and the petitioner was there, but in the other cases the shop was closed and nobody was there. The report is inconsistent in two material parts. The allegations were that the shop was closed but the petitioner was present there and produced records from the shop. These two statements are inconsistent and cannot go together. If the shop is closed there is no question of the presence of the petitioner at the shop and there is no scope for production of the records from the shop and there is no scope for recording in the inspecting report in the records. These two statements are inconsistent and cannot go together. If the shop is closed there is no question of the presence of the petitioner at the shop and there is no scope for production of the records from the shop and there is no scope for recording in the inspecting report in the records. In other cases, it is stated that the shop was closed and nobody was found there. There the stand was consistent. At this stage this court is not required to go into the details of these allegations and to find out whether this allegation is correct or not inasmuch as the matter has not been adjudicated and only the action that has been taken was that the allotment of articles had been suspended. from the show cause notice it appears that the suspension was made on the basis of the clear findings made in the show cause notice dated 5-7-88 that "it is clear that you have violated the clauses 6 and 7 of the Agreement executed by you with Government. In the circumstances I, the SCF and S, Alipore (S) the appointing authority with the approval of SDO (S) Alipore do hereby suspend the allotment in favour of you". The second part of the show cause notice is with regard to the termination as per clause which was kept blank in the show cause notice. So, in the notice itself, there are two parts of suspension by way of punishment and secondly, why the MR dealership should not be terminated as per same clause under the agreement which was not mentioned. It was contended by Mr. Moloy Kumar Basu, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that the allegations against the petitioners are wholly baseless, incorrect and false and drew the attention of this court to the report submitted against the petitioner. From the said report it was pointed out that the allegation that the shop remained closed, was wholly wrong, inasmuch as if the shop was closed, in that event how the petitioner could be present there and produced the records and registers and further if the shop was closed, in that event how it was possible for the said Inspector to record their observations in the records. From this it was submitted that two parts of the report cannot go together and it must be held that the shop was open and they had visited the shop and inspected the records. It was further pointed out that the allegation that the records are not being properly maintained, is vague and nobody can understand to give any reply to such a vague allegation. Mr. Basu submitted that within the scope of the writ application the court is not required to decide the validity of the allegation. But Mr. Basu submitted that the material clearly indicates total non-application of mind by the authorities concerned and further the allegations that were made were all in present tense and not past tense. The words do not open and did not keep open are not same and it conveys different meaning. Petitioner do not open the shop" means that he never keeps open the shop. There is no scope for making this allegation on the basis of the state of affair. Mr. Basu further submitted that an order of suspension cannot be passed without proper application of mind and it would be evident that in the show cause notice the termination was proposed as per same clause which was kept blank and was not filled up. It was further pointed out that similar show cause notice was issued in the number of cases and that was the reason for which so many occasions were there and in the second part of the order they did not fill up the gap which was kept for the purpose of mentioning a clause. ( 6 ) THE respondents did not file any affidavit even though direction was given by this Court on 22/07/1988. Mr. Asit Kumar Goswami, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, produced before this Court records including the instructions which he had received from his client and also produced the report that was submitted in this behalf and pointed out that the action has been taken on the basis of the report in question. True that under the agreement the petitioner is accountable as an agent of the Government in respect of the sale of foodstuffs and is required to maintain records and registers for that purpose. Clause 17 of that agreement confers power upon the District Magistrate or the Controller to suspend the supply of foodstuffs without assigning any reason. True that under the agreement the petitioner is accountable as an agent of the Government in respect of the sale of foodstuffs and is required to maintain records and registers for that purpose. Clause 17 of that agreement confers power upon the District Magistrate or the Controller to suspend the supply of foodstuffs without assigning any reason. In this particular case, the authorities concerned has assigned a reason for suspending the supply of foodstuffs. The reason does not appear to be good and sufficient for which any penal action by way of punishment. When an order of suspension by way of punishment is passed, in that event, there must be some good and sufficient grounds. The Court may enter into sufficient ground, but at the same time, the Court can examine whether there are some grounds which are cogent and relevant grounds. The allegation against the petitioner is not that the petitioner had misappropriated foodstuffs and/or had indulged some illegal activities and/or dealing with the foodstuffs in a clandestine manner. This is a public distribution system through which the foodstuffs are supplied to the people. The petitioner is an agent of the Government and the petitioner is accountable for anything done with the article of foodstuffs entrusted to the petitioner under the said agreement. It has to bear in mind that the conditions under which the petitioner has functioned have been dictated or enforced upon the petitioner still he is bound to carry out the same, he has no option to dictate his own terms. When Penal action is taken on the basis of certain allegations, in that event, it must confirm certain standard and that is with regard to reasonableness of the action in question. The judicial review under Art. 226 cannot be converted into an appeal. The judicial review is directed not against decision but is confined to examination of the decision making process and the Court has undoubtedly power to examine the decision making process and when the issue raised in the judicial review is whether a decision is vitiated by taking into account irrelevant, or neglecting to take into account of relevant factors or is so manifestly unreasonable that no reasonable authority, entrusted with the power in question could reasonably have made such a decision, the judicial review of the decision making process include examination, as a matter of law, of the relevance of the factors. " This was observed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of U. P. v. Maharaja Dharmender Prasad Singh reported in AIR 1989 SC 997 . In view of that judgment the Court can examine the decision making process by which the order of suspension was passed against the petitioner. ( 7 ) REFERENCE was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir reported in AIR 1980 SC 1992 wherein it was observed - "where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or granting other forms of largess, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will. Every activity of the Government has a public element in it and it must therefore, be informed with reason and guided by public interest. If the Government awards a contract or leases out or otherwise deals with its property or grants any other largess, it would be liable to be tested for its validity on the touchstone of reasonableness and public interested and if it fails to satisfy either test, it would be unconstitutional and invalid. " ( 8 ) APPLYING the principal laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid two cases, it can be safely said that in the facts and circumstances of the case the authorities concerned took the decision to suspend the supply of MR allotment without application of mind. Further, in my view, the order of suspension has been passed on the basis of the allegation and by way of penal nature, the same could not be done without affording any opportunity to the affected person. This is not a case of an employee by an employer. In that case during the period of suspension the employee gets either full salary or subsisting allowance as is provided under the agreement. This is a case of suspension of business of a particular man whose livelihood is depended on such business. In such a case the order of suspension cannot be passed at the sweet will. After all the petitioner is earning his livelihood from such business. Unless the authorities concerned have good and sufficient materials, the suspension in public interest can be done. After all the petitioner has also a right to carry on business. In such a case the order of suspension cannot be passed at the sweet will. After all the petitioner is earning his livelihood from such business. Unless the authorities concerned have good and sufficient materials, the suspension in public interest can be done. After all the petitioner has also a right to carry on business. The right of business is a fundamental right of a citizen guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. When the Government deals with fundamental right of a citizen, it cannot act at its own sweet will and cannot deny any action at their discretion. In this connection, Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth edition Volume I observed that -"the exercise of a statutory power is invalid unless the repository of the power has acted honestly and in good faith. The deliberate promotion of a purpose, be it public or private, alien to that for which the power was conferred is to be regarded as an act of bad faith". Where prima facie case was misuse of power has been made out, it is open to a Court to draw the inference that unauthorised purposes have been pursued if the competent authority fails to adduce any grounds supporting the validity of its conduct. ". ( 9 ) IT cannot be disputed that in the facts and circumstances of the case the respondents are duty bound to act fairly and such power is not purely in administrative nature which the respondents are acting which may affect the fundamental right of a citizen. Such an act is a quasi judicial act. When a dispute is to be decided and on the basis of such decision an action is to be taken, that decision has to be taken in a quasi judicial manner. ( 10 ) IN the instant case, in my view, on the basis of the material on record, it is clear that the authorities concerned did not apply their mind at all and had taken decision in unreasonable manner. The impugned action which is taken did not satisfy the twin tests, of reasonableness and public interest. Lastly, some portions of the show cause notice were kept blank and were not filled up. This also indicates total non-application of mind by the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned action which is taken did not satisfy the twin tests, of reasonableness and public interest. Lastly, some portions of the show cause notice were kept blank and were not filled up. This also indicates total non-application of mind by the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the uncontroverted fact this Court has to hold that the impugned action taken in the petition does not account warranted. ( 11 ) IN the result, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 5-7-88 in so far as it suspends the MR allotment is concerned, is set aside. The other part of the show cause notice by which the petitioner was directed to show cause, is not interfered with at this stage, inasmuch as, when a show cause notice was issued, it is duty on the part of the petitioner to give a reply to the show cause notice and the authorities concerned after the consideration of the show cause notice, may or may not take any action and if any action is taken then and there the petitioner can have a right to complain against the said order if the petitioner is aggrieved against that. I make it clear that the respondents would be at liberty to take action in terms of clause of the agreement, if the situation so warranted. ( 12 ) THE writ petition succeeds and allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. ( 13 ) LET similar order be passed in other two writ petitions, being C. O. 7298 (W) of 1988 and Co. 7299 (W) of 1988 and let all the writ applications be disposed of on the above terms. Petition allowed.