Order Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the State. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 12.9.1991, as contained in Annexure-3, cancelling the Stamp Vendor's Licence of the petitioner. 3. The sole ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity to him of filing show cause. This aspect has not been controverted by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed today. It has only been stated that a criminal case has been instituted against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted in this connection that the criminal case, referred to in the counter affidavit, has been instituted against a different person bearing the same name. Learned counsel, however, conceded that this stand is being taken only on the ground that the parentage of the accused has not been mentioned in the F.I.R. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, pointed out on the basis of the averment made in the counter affidavit that the accused in the criminal case is non-else than the petitioner himself. 4. It is not necessary to go into this controversy for the purpose of disposal of this writ application. In view of the uncontroverted position that the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity for showing cause to the petitioner, the impugned order has to be quashed on that ground alone. In the case of M/S Eurasian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and another (A.I.R. 1975 S.C. page 266) the Supreme Court observed while dealing with the case of black listing of contractor that the orders of that nature affects the livelihood of the person and, therefore, the minimum that should be done is to provide an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned. The instant case bears similarity with the case aforesaid inasmuch as the cancellation of the Vendor's licence will also visit the petitioner with evil consequences touching upon his livelihood. Accordingly, we have no option but to quash the impugned order (Annexure-3). 5. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.9.1991 (Annexure-3) is quashed. The Collector, Katibar, respondent no 2 will further have the liberty to act afresh in the matter in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, we have no option but to quash the impugned order (Annexure-3). 5. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.9.1991 (Annexure-3) is quashed. The Collector, Katibar, respondent no 2 will further have the liberty to act afresh in the matter in accordance with law. 6. It was pointed out that the Collector has passed a consequential order, which is contained in Memo No. 980 dated 16.9.1991 (Annexure-4), by which consequentially the petitioner was directed to deposit the stamps in the Treasury. Since the order of cancellation of the licence has been quashed, it would logically follow that if the petitioner has deposited the stamp pursuant to the aforesaid order, the same shall have to be refunded to him. This, however, will be subject to any final order, which the Collector may pass. 7. This application is thus, disposed of.