JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the order Annex. P/1. Vide this, the licence granted by respondent No.3 has been suspended. Two contentions have been raised by the petitioner; (i) the order Annexure Pl1 has been passed without affording an opportunity, (ii) that the order Annex. Pl1 has been passed after obtaining approval from the higher authorities. The fact that notice was not issued before passing the impugned order is not denied in the return filed by the respondent No.3. All that has been stated is that this was not required. Any order affecting the civil rights has to be passed consistently with the principles of natural justice. Reference may be made to S.L. Kapur v. Jagmohan and others AIR 1981 SC 136 . In this, the Supreme Court said that the principles of natural justice will apply even if the statute is silent about giving opportunity. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order has been passed after getting approval from the higher authorities has again merit. An order suspending the licence is a quasi-judicial order and this has to be passed independently by the authorities which have been conferred that power. If any order is passed after getting approval from the higher authorities or on the asking of the authorities then the same cannot be sustained. Reference may be made to the Division Bench decision of Punjab High Court reported in Kans Raj Nathu Ram v. Deputy Excise and Taxation Comm. & others AIR 1965 Pb 284. In the above case, the required licence was cancelled by the Collector on the asking of the State Government. Exercise of the power was held to be bad. Thus, looking from any point of view, there is merit in the contention raised. Order Annexure P/1 is set aside. The respondents would be at liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with law. The petitioner to appear before the respondent No.3 on 9th of March, 1995. This petition is disposed of as indicated above.