GITESH RANJAN BHATTACHARJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE learned Advocate for the respondents appeared to-day and prayed for leave to file the Affidavit-in-Opposition at this stage, belated though and also prayed for addressing the court. The affidavit-in-opposition is accepted and the learned Advocate for the respondents is permitted to make submissions. The learned Advocate for the petitioner was heard on an earlier date. ( 2 ) AFTER hearing the submissions of the Ld. Advocate for the respondents, the judgment is passed. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was granted licence by the Assistant Director of Consumer Goods, West Bengali to act as agent for distributing/ dealing in Kerosene Oil. He has been carrying on business as such agent since 1963. He has moved this writ petition under Article 226 challenging the order conveyed by the Assistant Director of Consumer Goods, West Bengal under his Memo No. CG/k. Oil/agt/ ramp/2/66/1700 dated 29-7-93 by which the said Assistant Director of Consumer Goods, purportingly in exercise of the power conferred upon him under para 9 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 placed the licence of the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect for violation of condition 9 of the licence and provision 5 (2) of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 and the petitioner was called upon to appear before the said Assistant Director of Consumer Goods on a specified date (viz. 17-8-93) for personal hearing with all relevant documents. In the said order, it was mentioned that it had been reported by the Sub-Divisional Controller (F and S) Rampurhat, Birbhum that the petitioner had violated the office orders Nos. 1990/92 dated 5-10-92, 0292/92 dated 9-10-92, 0433/92 dated 12-11-92 thereby causing disruption of Public Delivery (P. D.) system and it was also reported that the reply of the agent (petitioner) was far from satisfactory and the agent (petitioner) often violated office orders and made supply of S. K. Oil to big dealer in his own interest. The petitioner challenges the order of suspension on the ground that he did not violate any of the conditions of the licence granted to him nor did he violate the provision of 5 (2) of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 or any order of the appropriate authority. The petitioner challenges the order of suspension on the ground that he did not violate any of the conditions of the licence granted to him nor did he violate the provision of 5 (2) of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 or any order of the appropriate authority. It may be mentioned here that the writ petition was moved on 30-7-93 i. e. on the very next day on which the order of suspension of the licence was passed. The learned Judge taking up the matter on that day passed an interim order to maintain status quo as on 30-7-93 till 4-8-93. On 4-8-93 the learned Judge (Altamas Kabir, J.) however recorded that at that stage the learned Judge was not inclined to pass any interim order as prayed for since, prima facie, it appeared from the order that the petitioner had allegedly violated the office orders referred to there in. The learned Judge rather directed the petitioner to appear before the Assistant Director of Consumer Goods, West Bengal on 17/08/1993 and to make submission before him. The learned Judge also observed that the petitioner would be entitled to take all points taken in the writ petition at the time of hearing of the said matter by the Assistant Director of Consumer Goods, West Bengal. The learned Judge also granted liberty to the Assistant Director of Consumer Goods, to pass final order in the proceedings but not to give effect to the same until further orders of this Court. Subsequently after hearing the Assistant Director of Consumer Goods recorded an order on 20-8-93 holding that the licence of the petitioner/agent was liable to be cancelled. The Assistant Director of Consumer Goods also referred the matter to the Director of Consumer Goods (DCG) for perusal and order and it appears that the DCG also agreed regarding the cancellation of the licence of the petitioner. Obviously, such order of cancellation could not be given effect to in view of the order passed by Altamas Kabir, J. on 4-8-93 as stated earlier. On 19-8-93 the petitioner affirmed a supplementary affidavit raising disputes over certain factual aspects of the matter also. ( 4 ) IN the order of suspension dated 29-7-93 Annexure-H to the writ petition, as we have seen, violation of certain office orders of the Sub-Divisional Controller (F and S), Rampurhat has been alleged. On 19-8-93 the petitioner affirmed a supplementary affidavit raising disputes over certain factual aspects of the matter also. ( 4 ) IN the order of suspension dated 29-7-93 Annexure-H to the writ petition, as we have seen, violation of certain office orders of the Sub-Divisional Controller (F and S), Rampurhat has been alleged. The first one is order dated 5-10-92 which is Annexure-B to the writ petition. By that order issued by the Sub-Divisional Controller (F and S) the petitioner was requested to deliver S. K. Oil to Aktar Alam a kerosene oil big dealer of Rajgram, as per programme fixed by the office as usual until further order. The second order is dated 9-10-92 which is Annexure-C to the writ petition. In that order it is stated by the Sub-Divisional Controller (F and S) that the petitioner has violated the earlier order dated 5-10-92 by which he was directed to supply kerosene oil to Aktar Alam, the big oil dealer of Rajgram. The petitioner was, however, again directed by the said order dated 9-10-92 to deliver the allotted 12 kilo litres kerosene oil to Aktar Alam within 13-10-92. The last order mentioned in the order of suspension is dated 12-11-92 which is Annexure-H to the writ petition. In that letter issued to the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Controller (F and S) it is stated that on 29-10-92 the petitioner assured that he would supply 2 tanks, that is, 24 kilo litres of Kerosene oil to Anukul Kannan but he did not keep his assurance. It is further mentioned in that letter dated 12-11-92 that the petitioner was informed by letter dated 30-10-92 to keep in reserve 2 tanks, that is 24 kilo litres of kerosene oil for direct supply to the M. R. dealers of Loharpur, but the petitioner disobeyed the said order. Lastly it is mentioned in the said letter that from the reports submitted to the office of the Sub-Divisional Controller (F and S) by the petitioner it has appeared that without any order of the office of the Sub-Divisional Controller (Fands) the petitioner had supplied 3 tanks, that is, 36 kilo litres of kerosene oil to Ramchandra Sahu, h big dealer of Rajgram. Accordingly the petitioner was asked in the said letter dated 12-11-92 by the Sub-Divisional Controller (Fands) to show cause within 7 days as to why action should not be taken against him according to law. ( 5 ) IT may be mentioned here that by a subsequent letter dated 30-11-92 Annexure-E to the writ petition the Sub-Divisional Controller (Fands) pointed out to the petitioner that the explanation called for in the earlier letter No. 2433 had not been submitted by the petitioner and on the contrary the petitioner, as it appeared from the report received in the current month, supplied two tanks of kerosene oil to the big dealer, Ram Chandra Sahu of Rajgram in excess of the programme without any order of the office. The petitioner was accordingly asked why action in accordance with law should not be taken against him for not replying to the earlier letter as well as for supplying excess kerosene oil to Ram Chandra Sahu. The petitioner was given 5 days' time to submit his written explanation in the matter. The petitioner then submitted his explanation by a letter dated 7-12-92 addressed to the Sub-Divisional Controller (Fands) which is Annexure-F to the writ petition. For non-submission of his reply to the earlier letter of the Sub-Divisional Controller (Fands) he stated in the said letter dated 7-12-92 that at the relevant time some family troubles were going on. Then by way of explanation as to why he supplied excess kerosene oil to Ram Chandra Sahu the petitioner mentioned in the said letter that on 4-8-92 he went to the office of the Sub-Divisional Controller (F and S) and reported that Aktar Alam, a big dealer of Rajgram had told that in that month he would not lift kerosene oil and at that time the Sub-Divisional Controller (Fands) asked the petitioner in presence of one Durgababu, Area Inspector of Mureral and the big dealer, Ram Chandra Sahu to supply kerosene oil to Ram Chandra Sahu as much as may be necessary so that Rajgram might not go dry and accordingly he had supplied kerosene oil to Ram Chandra Sahu. It is further stated in that letter by the petitioner that on 9-10-92 the Sub-Divisional Controller (Fands) asked the petitioner to supply kerosene oil to Aktar Alam, another big dealer of Rajgram at the rate of one tank per month and accordingly he had supplied to Aktar Alam 12 kilo litres of kerosene oil on 17-12-92 and thereafter he had supplied kerosene oil to Aktar Alam and Ram Chandra Sahu as per order of the Sub-Divisional Controller (Fands ). Thereafter, the impugned suspension order dated 29-7-93 was issued to the petitioner. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that this suspension order was issued about 7 months after the petitioner had submitted his explanation dated 7-12-92. That, in my opinion, does not make the suspension order bad. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the Sub-Divisional Controller (Fands) at Rampurhat, and thereafter the said officer must have considered the same and referred the matter to the Directorate of Consumer Goods at Calcutta and the matter must have been considered there and thereafter the suspension order was issued. Consequently the process took sometime to culminate in the suspension order. ( 6 ) THE petitioner challenges the suspension order on several grounds. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the suspension order is not a speaking order as it does not show why the petitioner's explanation was considered not satisfactory. In this connection, the learned Advocate for the petitioner also refers to the decision of this Court in Md. Zazmul Ahasen v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1982 Cal 546 . That was a case where the order of cancellation of dealership was under challenge and consideration. The order did not contain any reason why the charges against the dealer were held proved and explanation given by him was not acceptable. The order not being a speaking order was found liable to be set aside. In our present case, what has been challenged in the first instance is the order of suspension purportingly issued under paragraph 9 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968. The order not being a speaking order was found liable to be set aside. In our present case, what has been challenged in the first instance is the order of suspension purportingly issued under paragraph 9 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968. The said paragraph authorises the concerned officer to forthwith temporarily suspend the licence if it appears to him that an agent or a dealer has indulged in any malpractice or contravened any provision of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 or any condition of the licence or any direction given under paragraph 12 of the said order. The very nature of the provision shows that the order of temporary suspension can be passed forthwith when it appears to the concerned officer that any of the events mentioned therein has occurred. Obviously at that stage the question of passing any reasoned order does not arise. And this is so even if the concerned authority has chosen to ask for any explanation from the concerned person before hand in respect of any matter which, according to him, would attract paragraph 9 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968. After considering the explanation, if any, or even without calling for any explanation if it appears to the concerned officer that any of the events mentioned in the said paragraph-9 has occurred, be can forthwith temporarily suspend the licence mentioned in the ground of suspension without passing a speaking order regarding the explanation, if any, that might have been submitted by the person concerned. This conclusion is further reinforced by the proviso to the said paragraph-9 which says that the agent or the dealer whose licence has been suspended shall be given an opportunity of being heard before cancellation of the licence or revocation of the order of suspension of the licence finally by an order in writing to be made within 30 days from the date of suspension of the licence and the order shall be passed ex parte if the dealer whose licence has been so suspended fails to appear at the hearing. Therefore, it is mandatory upon the officer concerned to pass the final order either cancelling the licence or revoking the suspension order within 30 days from the date of suspension of the licence. (Vide 1992 (2) CHN 323 ). Therefore, it is mandatory upon the officer concerned to pass the final order either cancelling the licence or revoking the suspension order within 30 days from the date of suspension of the licence. (Vide 1992 (2) CHN 323 ). There is no gainsaying that an order of cancellation must be a speaking order giving reasons in support of the same and also indicating some reason as to why the petitioner's explanation was not acceptable. That is also the purport and import of the decision in Md. Zazmul Ahasen v. State of West Bengal,. That, however, is not applicable to the stage of issuing the order of temporary suspension under the said paragraph-9. The impugned order of suspension however records, the reasons, in the sense of grounds, which actuated the authority concerned to issue the suspension order. That is enough for the purpose of sustaining the prima facie validity of the suspension order so far it relates to the contention that the suspension order is not a reasoned order. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Mahabir Prasad v. State of U. P. , AIR 1970 SC 1302 . That decision also relates to an order of cancellation of licence. In the present case, we are concerned at the present moment with the suspension order. Both the said decisions as referred to above would undoubtedly be attracted at the stage when the authority concerned would pass an order of cancellation of licence as well as at the stage of hearing of appeal by the appellate authority against any order of cancellation of licence. ( 7 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Sub-Divisional Controller (Fands) is not authorised to pass any order or direction under Para 12 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 so that any violation of the same could attract paragraph9 of the said Kerosene Control Order. The said paragraph-12 speaks of Director or District Magistrate having jurisdiction. In paragraph-3 (e) it is stated that 'district Magistrate' includes the Deputy Commissioner of a District and also includes any person not below the rank of a Sub-Divisional Controller of Food and Supplies in the Deptt. The said paragraph-12 speaks of Director or District Magistrate having jurisdiction. In paragraph-3 (e) it is stated that 'district Magistrate' includes the Deputy Commissioner of a District and also includes any person not below the rank of a Sub-Divisional Controller of Food and Supplies in the Deptt. of Food and Supplies, Government of West Bengal, authorised by the District Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, in writing to perform all or any of the functions of the District Magistrate under the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is nothing to show that the Sub-Divisional Controller of Food and Supplies has been authorised by the District Magistrate in writing to perform the functions of the District Magistrate under the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968. As we have seen, the petitioner has been receiving directions regarding distribution and supply of kerosene oil from the Sub-Divisional Controller (F and S) and he has been also submitting his reports and returns to the Sub-Divisional Controller (Fands) without any question. This very fact that a system is working in which the Sub-Divisional Controller (Fands) is issuing necessary directions, regarding distribution and supply of kerosene oil and the agents and dealers are carrying on their business according to such directions and orders and are also submitting reports and returns to him raises a presumption that the Sub-Divisional Controller (Fands) has been duly authorised by the District Magistrate to discharge such functions. But then such presumption is of no avail in a proceeding, as here, where the authority exercising the power or function in question is a party to the proceeding and his authority to exercise such delegated power or function has been directly challenged by the petitioner on the ground of want of necessary delegation. In such a situation the concerned authority, instead of relying on presumption, has to establish and satisfy the Court that proper delegation was actually made and such delegation exists as a matter of fact. The respondents, however, has done nothing of the sort in this case. ( 8 ) IT has also been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Assistant Director of Consumer Goods cannot pass any order of cancellation or suspension of licence. Such plea has also been taken in paragraphs 9, 13 of the affidavit affirmed by the petitioner on 20-9-93. ( 8 ) IT has also been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Assistant Director of Consumer Goods cannot pass any order of cancellation or suspension of licence. Such plea has also been taken in paragraphs 9, 13 of the affidavit affirmed by the petitioner on 20-9-93. Paragraph-3 (d) of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 provides that 'director' means the Director of Consumer Good, Department of Food and Supplies, Government of West Bengal and includes any person, not below the rank of Deputy Assistant Director, Consumer Goods, Department of Food and Supplies, Government of West Bengal authorised by the State Government in this behalf to perform all or any of the functions of the Director under the said Kerosene Control Order. It appears that under Notification No. 1809-FS dated 31-3-1987 all the Assistant Directors of Consumer Goods have been authorised to act on behalf of the Director of Consumer Goods for the purpose of issue or renewal of licence under the Kerosene Control Order, 1968. There is, however, nothing to show that the Asstt. Director has been authorised under para-3 (d) of the said Kerosene Control Order to suspend or cancel the licence of an agent under paragraph-9 of the said Kerosene Control Order. That being so, neither the order of suspension nor the order of cancellation drawn up by the Assistant Director of Consumer Goods can be sustained. The order of suspension as well as the order of cancellation of the licence of an agent is required to be passed by the Director or an appropriate Authority duly authorised under paragraph-3 (d) of the said Kerosene Control Order. It is needless to mention that the proceeding for cancellation of the licence also most be drawn up and dealt with by the appropriate Authority. Since it appears in the present case that the Assistant Director is not authorised either to suspend or to cancel a licence of an agent under the said paragraph-9 it is evident that he cannot also take up for consideration and decide whether the licence should be cancelled or not. The mere fact that after the proceeding has been taken up by the Asst. Director and dealt with and decided by the Assistant Director the same is placed before the Director and the Director approves or agrees with the decision or suggestion of the Asst. The mere fact that after the proceeding has been taken up by the Asst. Director and dealt with and decided by the Assistant Director the same is placed before the Director and the Director approves or agrees with the decision or suggestion of the Asst. Director, is not a sufficient compliance of the requirement of paragraph-9 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 regarding exercise of function by the appropriate authority. That being so, the order of suspension and the proceeding started thereon including the proposed order of cancellation cannot be sustained as the power in respect of the same does not appear to have been duly exercised by the appropriate authority. On that ground alone the order of suspension and the proceeding started thereon for cancellation of the licence of the petitioner as well as the proposed order of cancellation cannot he sustained and the same are hereby quashed. In view of my finding that the Assistant Director of Consumer Goods is not shown to have been authorised to suspend or cancel the licence of an agent under paragraph-9 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order 1968 and is also not, therefore, authorised to start a proceeding for cancellation of such licence, it is not necessary for me to record or deal with the other contentions raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioner before me. The respondents are directed to renew the licence of the petitioner within a fortnight from this date if the same has expired by efflux of time during the pendency of the writ petition. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. No cost is, however, ordered. ( 9 ) STAY asked for by the learned Advocate for the respondents is refused. ( 10 ) ALL parties shall act on a signed copy of the operative part of this judgment on the usual undertaking. Petition allowed.