Order After hearing Mr. S. D. Sanjay, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents, and on perusal of the materials on record, this Court thinks that this matter should be disposed of at the admission stage and I hereby do the same by passing the following order. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.4.1994 passed by the District Agriculture Officer, Muzaffarpur vide Memo No. 420 dated 25.4.1994 by which the petitioner's application for renewal of certificate of registration has been refused. 3. The material facts of this case are that the petitioner applied for certificate of registration for carrying on business in fertilizer under the provisions of Fertilizer Control Order, and the same was granted to the petitioner with effect from 11.10.1991 which was valid upto 31st March, 1994. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for renewal of said certificate of registration after depositing the renewal fees of Rs. 650/-. It is not disputed that the petitioner applied for renewal of the said certificate of registration in time. The said prayer for renewal of certificate of registration of the petitioner was, however, rejected by the District Agriculture Officer, Muzaffarpur, by its order as stated above dated 25.4.1994. 4. From perusal of the said order it appears that the same has been rejected on the basis of certain directions in the letter of the Registrar of the Co-operative Society. Except referring to the said letter of the Registrar, Co-operative Society the impugned order does not disclose any reason for cancellation of the prayer for renewal of the certificate of registration. It is stated in the writ petition that the impugned order was passed by the District Agriculture Officer, the respondent no. 2 on the basis of the letter of the Registrar of the Co-operative Society vide Memo No. 3 dated 2.1.1991 and Memo No. 2023 dated 19.3.1993. 5. The petitioner's contention is that the matter for grant of renewal of certificate of registration is to be considered under the provisions of Clause-11 of the Fertilizers Control Order, 1985. The said Clause-11 of the Fertilizer Control Order is set out below:- 11. Renewal of Certificate of registration. 5. The petitioner's contention is that the matter for grant of renewal of certificate of registration is to be considered under the provisions of Clause-11 of the Fertilizers Control Order, 1985. The said Clause-11 of the Fertilizer Control Order is set out below:- 11. Renewal of Certificate of registration. - (1) Every holder of a certificate of registration desiring to renew the certificate of registration granted under clause 9 shall, before the date of expiry of such certificate of registration make an application for renewal to the registration authority in Form C, in duplicate, together with the fees prescribed under Clause 36 for such renewal and a certificate of source is required under Clause 8. (2) On receipt of such application, together with such fee and certificate of source, the registering authority may renew the certificate of registration : Provided that a certificate of registration shall not be renewed, if the holder of the certificate of registration did not sell any fertilizer during the period of one year immediately preceding the date of expiry of the period of validity of the certificate of registration sought to be renewed. (3) If any application for renewal is not made before expiry of the period of validity of the certificate of registration but is made within one month from the' date of such expiry, the certificate of registration may be renewed on payment of such additional fees as may be prescribed by the State Government, in addition to the fee for renewal of the certificate of registration. (4) Where the application for renewal is made within the time specified in sub-clause (1) or sub-clause (3) the applicant shall be deemed to have held a valid certificate of registration, until such date as the registering authority passes orders on the application for renewal. (5) If an application for renewal of a certificate of registration is not made within one month of the date of expiry of the period of validity of the certificate of registration, the certificate of registration shall be deemed to have lapsed on the date on which its validity expired and any business carried on after that date shall be deemed to have been carried on in contravention of Clause 7." 6. It is common ground that the impugned order was passed by the respondent no. 2 in exercise of power under Clause-11 of the said Control Order. It is common ground that the impugned order was passed by the respondent no. 2 in exercise of power under Clause-11 of the said Control Order. The said Clause-11 makes the renewal of the certificate of registration almost automatic on fulfilment of certain conditions mentioned in the said Clause-11. It would appear from Clause-11 of the said Control Order that the renewal for grant of certificate of registration is the rule and refusal is an exception. 7. Under the said Clause-11 the discretion which the authorities concerned can exercise in the matter of refusing the renewal of the registration certification is controlled by the statutory provisions, namely that renewal can be refused when (i) the holder of certificate of registration did not sell any fertilizer within a period of one year immediately prior to the date of expiry of the period of validity of the certificate, (ii) when the renewal is not applied before the expiry of the period of validity of the certificate. Even in case of late prayer for renewal made within one month of the period of expiry of the licence the same can be considered on payment of additional fees. 8. Except the aforesaid conditions the authorities renewing the certificate are not to refuse renewal on other conditions. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner therefore urges that the renewal in this case has been rejected without any relevant reasons. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents filed affidavit stating therein that the impugned order refusing the renewal is validly passed. In paragraph-17 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner has never submitted any report about selling of fertilizer and has not submitted any proof regarding selling of fertilizer during the period of one year immediately preceding the date of expiry of the period of validity. As such, renewal has been rightly rejected. In support of the said averment in para-7 no document has been annexed with the counter-affidavit. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the application for renewal was made in statutory Form-C and he has completed the said form as required under the statutory description, the same appears from Annexure-3 at page-20 of the writ petition. In the said form at the relevant place the particulars about the sale of fertilizer have been stated. 11. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the application for renewal was made in statutory Form-C and he has completed the said form as required under the statutory description, the same appears from Annexure-3 at page-20 of the writ petition. In the said form at the relevant place the particulars about the sale of fertilizer have been stated. 11. In the rejoinder filed by the writ petitioner the aforesaid averment made in para-7 of the counter-affidavit has also been denied. 12. This court is of the view that once order has been passed by a statutory authority in exercise of his duty imposed upon him under the statute, the said cannot be improved subsequently by filing affidavits in court. Since in the impugned order there is no mention of the objection sought to be advanced by respondent in the counter affidavit this court is not called upon to decide the question whether or not the application for renewal of the petitioner was made on fulfilment of the required condition. The rejection of the said renewal has been made admittedly on the basis of clear dictation by the Registrar of the Co-operative Society. 13. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of the Purtabpore Company Ltd. vs. Cane Commissioner of Bihar and others reported in 1969 (1) S.C. Cases page-308 that officers exercising statutory power are to exercise their independent judgment. The officers may take into consideration a relevant question of public policy but this does not absolve them from exercising their independent judgment. Paras-12 and 13 of the said judgment at page 318 of the report is set out below : - "12. The executive officers entrusted with statutory discretions may in some cases be obliged to take into account considerations of public policy and in some context the policy of a Minister or the Government as a whole when it is a relevant factor in weighing the policy but this will not absolve them from their duty to exercise their personal judgment in individual case unless explicit statutory provision has been made for them to be given binding instructions by a superior." "13. In Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, this court struck down the order purported to have been passed by the Commissioner of Police in the exercise of his powers under the Bombay Police Act and the rules made thereunder as the order in question was in fact that of the Government. The rule laid down in that decision governs the question under consideration. This Court reiterated that rule in State of Punjab v. Hari Kishan Sharma. Therein this Court held that the State Government was not justified in assuming jurisdiction which had been conferred on the licensing authority by Section 5 (1) and (2) of the Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Act. For the reasons mentioned above we hold that the impugned orders are liable to be struck down as they were not made by the prescribed authority." 14. Similar views have been expressed in the treatise on Administrative Law by H.W.R. Wade (5th Edition), at page 329 of the said book the learned author says as follows : - "Closely akin to delegation, and scarcely distinguishable from it in some cases, is any arrangement by which a power conferred upon one authority is in substance exercised by another. The proper authority may share its power with someone else, or may allow some one else to dictate to it by declining to act without their consent or by submitting to their wishes or instructions. The effect then is that the discretion conferred by Parliament is exercised, at least in part by the wrong authority, and the resulting decision is ultra vires and void. So strict are the courts in applying this principle that they condemn some administrative arrangements which must seem quite natural and proper to those who make them. In this class rightly be included the case of the Cinema Licensing Authority which, by requiring films to be approved by the British Board of Film Censors, was held to have surrendered its power of control into unauthorised hands." 15. Apart from this in this case the renewal of registration is not an application for initial grant. In that view of the matter, there is legitimate expectation of the petitioner seeking renewal of his registration that his application for renewal will be granted. Even if it is not granted the same cannot be refused without a hearing. Apart from this in this case the renewal of registration is not an application for initial grant. In that view of the matter, there is legitimate expectation of the petitioner seeking renewal of his registration that his application for renewal will be granted. Even if it is not granted the same cannot be refused without a hearing. In the famous commentary on Judicial Review of Administrative Action (4th Edition) S. A. De Smith, it has, been observed at page-223-224 as follows : - "Non-renewal of an existing licence is usually a more serious matter than refusal to grant licence in the first place. Unless the licensee has already been given to understand when he was granted the licence that renewal is not to be expected, non-renewal may seriously upset his plans, cause him economic loss and perhaps cast a slur on his reputation. It may therefore, be right to imply a duty to hear before a decision not to renew when there is a legitimate expectation of renewal, even though no such duty is implied in the making of the original decision to grant or refuse the licence." Similar observations have been made by Supreme Court in the case of M/s Chingleput Bottlers v. M/s Majestic Bottling Company, reported in A.I.R. 1984 Supreme Court page-1030. Approving the decision of Megarry V.C. in Mclnnes vs. Onslow Fane in 1978, 3 All, ER page-211, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court held in the case of Chingleput Bottlers (supra) at page 1041 para-35 of the report as follows : - "In Mc Innes v. Onslow Fane (1978)3 All. ER. 211, Megarry, V.C. has drawn a distinction between initial applications for grant of licence and the revocation, suspension or refusal to renew licences already granted. The learned Vice-Chancellor says that there is a substantial distinction between application cases and forfeiture cases. He observes that while an applicant for grant of licence has neither a right to such a grant nor a reasonable expectation that such grant would be made in his favour, but cancellation or forfeiture of an existing licence or refusal to renew a licence, involves a right to a hearing as the applicant has what may be called reasonable expectation." 16. In view of the aforesaid legal position I set aside the impugned order and direct respondent no. In view of the aforesaid legal position I set aside the impugned order and direct respondent no. 2 to consider within eight weeks from date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment, the petitioner's application for renewal and pass an order strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Clause-11 of the said Control Order and before doing so he must give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. It is hereby made clear that the application for renewal will now be considered as pending before the said authority within the meaning of Clause-11 of the said Control Order. 17. This writ petition is thus allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to cost.