JUDGMENT Dilip Kumar Basu, J. : The petitioner was appointed as a Dealer in M.R. Commodities including Kerosene Oil having his godown and shop of his own. 2. The petitioner entered into an agreement and deposited a security of Rs. 250/-. The said agreement was executed by and between the petitioner and the Sub-Divisional Controller on behalf of the Government of West Bengal on 27th December, 1993. 3. The petitioner was served with a show Gause notice dated 17th February, 1994 which is Annexure 'D' to' the writ petition, where the petitioner was placed under suspension in respect of further supply of Kerosene Oil and other M.R. Commodities. The petitioner was directed to show cause within 10 days from the date of receipt of such show cause notice. 4. The said show cause notice was challenged in a writ petition being No. C.O.391(W) of 1994, which went up to the Appeal Court and the Appeal court in F.M.A.T. No. 717 of 1994 disposed of the appeal by directing the competent authority to consider and dispose of the representation already filed before the competent authority. 5. Pursuant to such order in F.M.A.T. No. 717 of 1994, the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food & Supplies, Lalbagh, considered the representation and cancelled the petitioner's Kerosene Oil licence and M.R. Dealership by memo No. 1311(7)/IV/M.R.ADMN/SCL/94 dated 16th June, 1994 which is Annexure 'H' to the writ petition. 6. The cancellation order dated 16th June, 1994 is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 7. The Sub-Divisional Controller, Food & Supplies, Lalbagh, upon consideration of the representation and several charges against the petitioner observed that "performance of the petitioner as an M.R. Dealer was not at all satisfactory". The Sub-Divisional Controller, Food & Supplies, Lalbagh, in cancelling the petitioner Kerosene Oil licence and M.R. Dealership observed, inter alia, as follows: "As regards non-distribution of K. Oil during the week with effect from 31.1.94 to 6.2.94, the petitioner replied that he distributed K. Oil during the week in question and as he got less allotment to the tune of 72 litres, he could not effect delivery to some I.R.C. Holders and as a self defence at the time of hearing he produced a [mass petition signed by 335 (approx) persons but no Ration Card No. (s) were mentioned against such persons. However, if it is accepted for argument sake that the petitioner effected delivery to those persons who signed in the mass petition during the week in question, still it does not corroborate that he delivered 660 litres of K. Oil to the Ration Card holders during the week in question in as much as about 3600 Ration Cards were tagged with his shop. On the other hand, there is a mass petition signed by about 350 persons who have stated that they did not get supply of K. Oil from the petitioner's shop during the week ill question and the local Panchayat Prodhan as well as Sabhapati of Raninagar-II Panchayat Samity also reported that the petitioner did not 'distribute the stocks of K.Oil to the Ration. Card Holders during the week in question and disposed of the same unlawfully. As regards third charge that his 'past performance as M.R. Dealer is not satisfactory in as much as on 6.2.93 during inquiry, an excess stock of 22.350 Kgs. of Sugar was detected at the petitioner's M.R, shop and in reply what the petitioner has stated through his reply dated 18.2.94 is not convincing and office records clearly reveal that on 6.2.93 during checking of M.R. Shop of the petitioner an excess stock of 22.350 Kgs. of Sugar was detected and at that time he was warned with direction to be very careful in future and only his security money (Rs. 250.00) was forfeited as a token of penal action against his aforesaid laches. Thus it appears that the performance of the petitioner as an M.R. Dealer is not at all satisfactory and his aforesaid activities violated the provisions of West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 and terms and conditions of M.R. Agreement executed by him with the Govt. to act as an M.R. dealer. "Now, after careful consideration; of all aspects, I, the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food & Supplies, Lalbagh in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under paragraph 9 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 (as amended) and as authorised by the District Magistrate, Murshidabad and as per Clause 17, of the M.R. Agreement do hereby cancel the petitioner's K. Oil Licence and M.R. Dealership on the ground stated hereinbefore with immediate effect." 8. It has been contended by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the allegation of non-distribution of Kerosene Oil to the Ration Card holders attached to M.R. [Shop during the week commencing from 31.1.94 to 6.2.1994 was wrong and non-existent. Whatever quantity the petitioner received during the week was distributed to the Ration Card holders and during the week when the short fall of deficit was shown under the show cause notice, the petitioner had received Kerosene Oil by less supply of 72 litres of Kerosene Oil and as such some of the Kerosene card holders could not be supplied in the said period. 9. This court is not called upon to consider the functional laches and lapses of the M.R. dealer but this court cannot be unmindful to certain aspects that the functionaries of the State Government have acted in arbitrary manner and non-application of mind. 10 It appears from the impugned order dated 16th June, 1994 the all the charges were considered. But it appears that the respondent concerned, in cancelling the Kerosene Oil licence and M.R. Dealership, has considered the factum of penalty imposed upon the petitioner earlier, i.e., some time on 6th February, 1993. During checking of M.R. shop of the petitioner an excess stock of 22,350 Kgs. of Sugar was detected and at that time the petitioner was cautioned with a direction to be very careful in future and only his security money of Rs. 250/- was forfeited as a token of penalty action in the aforesaid laches. 11. It has also been contended by I the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that one of the grounds, mentioned in the show cause notice, appears to be illegal and arbitrary. For the purpose of consideration of the show cause notice, the order of, cancellation should be set aside in as much as the respondent concerned possibly, could not apply his mind as to which on the three charges was! rational or relevant for the purpose of subjective satisfaction in adjudicating the show cause notice. 12. Attention has been drawn of this court in the case of Kuso Sah vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in AIR 1974 SC156, where the Supreme Court had taken the sama view in a case when a Citizen was detained under the Prevention of Detention Act. 12. Attention has been drawn of this court in the case of Kuso Sah vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in AIR 1974 SC156, where the Supreme Court had taken the sama view in a case when a Citizen was detained under the Prevention of Detention Act. In the aforesaid Kuso Sah (supra) case, it was observed, inter alia, as follows : "The order of detention expressly states that it was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the' maintenance of supplies and service essential to the community. The statement of grounds contains at the end the assertion that the District Magistrate was satisfied that if the petitioner was allowed to remain at large he will indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and supplies and services essential to' the community (emphasis supplied). The two reasons, maintenance of public order and maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, cannot therefore. be bifurcated and considered in separate compartments. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority embraces both the reasons and since two out of the three grounds mentioned in the first para are irrelevant the entire order is illegal." 13. The earlier two decisions in the case of Pushkar Mukherjee vs. State of W.B., reported in AIR 1970 SC 852 and in the case 'of Motilal Jain vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1968 SC 1509 were considered and followed. 14. It is has also been contended by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that earlier penal action taken .by forfeiting the security deposit was again considered by the competent authority-respondent as indicated by the competent authority-respondent as indicated in the impugned order and is not warranted in consideration of such action a later proceeding and accordingly, it suffers from non application of mind. 15. It has been contended by the' learned Advocate for the petitioner that such action on the basis of the previous penal action, as indicated in the impugned order dated 16th June, 1994, is ante thesis to the protection being granted under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India provides la protective umbrella to a citizen. Under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, it is provided, inter alia, as follows : 20(2). Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India provides la protective umbrella to a citizen. Under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, it is provided, inter alia, as follows : 20(2). No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. 16. Accordingly, by cancelling the petitioner's Kerosene Oil licence and M.R. Dealership, the respondent had considered the earlier penal action and therefore, only on this ground the entire impugned order should be set aside. 17. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner further stated that under clause 17 of the Agreement which is Annexure 'A' to the writ petition, a prior approval is necessary before cancelling the licence of M.R. Dealership. Paragraph 17 of the Agreement contemplates, inter alia, as follows : 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 Government against the Retailer may suspend supply of foodstuffs and essential commodities to the Retailer forthwith and after giving the Retailer an opportunity of 'stating his case in writing cancel the 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 of to carry out or observe any directions given to the Retailer under the provisions of this agreement. 18. The learned Advocate appearing for the State-respondents has fairly stated that the impugned order cannot be supported in view of the fact that the competent authority-respondent did not apply his mind solely on the charges or laches or lapses at the instance of the petitioner in 1994. But the respondent concerned had considered the earlier penal action, that is in the year 1993 and therefore, the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind. 19. The learned Advocate for the State-respondents could not produce the authority as contemplated in clause 17 of the Agreement. No approval was shown by the concerned respondent though the approval of the District Magistrate cannot be a general and genuine approval in terms of the Clause 17 of the Agreement. There must be a specific approval in the specific matter. The learned Advocate for• the State-respondents could not produce any approval in the instant case. 20. No approval was shown by the concerned respondent though the approval of the District Magistrate cannot be a general and genuine approval in terms of the Clause 17 of the Agreement. There must be a specific approval in the specific matter. The learned Advocate for• the State-respondents could not produce any approval in the instant case. 20. In the case of Abdul Azim vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 1984( 1) CLJ 280, it has been held, inter alia as follows: "In the instant case, the District Magistrate while forwarding his so-called approval, it appears, cannot be said to have applied his mind to the necessity of cancellation of the Agreement in question, not to speak of considering the materials and facts relevant for the purpose of or having reasonable nexus to such cancellation. While granting approval, the District Magistrate must apply his mind to such materials in the context of a proposal for cancellation by the Sub-Divisional Controller and must be satisfied about the complete absence of any ground for condonation of the default on the part of the delinquent retailer in complying with the terms and conditions of the Agreement which calls for an order of cancellation. There was a total absence of consideration of such factors by the District Magistrate. That being the position, the order complained of cannot be sustained." 21. In such view of the matter, it cannot be said whether by passing the impugned order the concerned respondent had only considered the imputation of charges against the petitioner or the respondent was influenced by the penal action taken against the petitioner on 6th February, 1993. Accordingly, the impugned order cancelling the petitioner's Kerosene Oil and M.R. Dealership should be quashed. Therefore I quash and set aside the impugned order dated 16th June, 1994. Respondents are directed to restore the licence in favour of the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of the order. 22. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. 23. There will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.