ORDER D.P.S. Chauhan, J. 1. Shri Ravindra Shrivastava learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in W.P. No. 2904/95 this Court on 2.11.95 has passed order disposing the petition after hearing the counsel for the parties. This case is identical one and the same order may be passed. Learned counsel for the State Shri. V.K. Shukla does not dispute the position and agrees for passing similar order. Accordingly following order is passed : The petitioner is a licensee of manufacturing of Insecticides at Vidisha under the provision of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A show-cause notice was given to the petitioner under clause (b) of section 14 of the the said Act, to show cause why the license be not revoked or suspended. The petitioner showed the cause. The Licensing Authority-cum-Joint Director of Agriculture, Bhopal passed the order dated 10.2.95 purporting in exercise of powers u/s 14 of the Act. It is not a matter to be gone into the merits and it can be disposed of on the preliminary defect. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Counsel. 3. The objection of the petitioner itself was disposed of by the initial authority i.e. - the Licensing Authority, which, u/s, 14 of the Act, was under an obligation before revoking or suspending the license to give the licence holder an opportunity of showing cause. The words "On an opportunity of showing cause" does not mean that the reply may be taken by the concerned authority and that should be kept in the filed and that it does not require application of mind. The order dated 10.2.95 (Annexure-D) itself indicates that the licensing authority has not applied at all its mind. It has not discussed the objections and also the reply qua the objection. The order is prima facie laconic and it cannot be allowed to stand. In the petition, a ground has been taken to the effect that the impugned order of cancellation has been passed without application of mind. The Licensing Authority has merely said that the reply of the petitioner is not satisfactory. This is hardly any reason. 4. The order is prima facie laconic and it cannot be allowed to stand. In the petition, a ground has been taken to the effect that the impugned order of cancellation has been passed without application of mind. The Licensing Authority has merely said that the reply of the petitioner is not satisfactory. This is hardly any reason. 4. The learned State Counsel pointed out that the appeal has been provided u/s 15 of the Act and the petitioner has availed the remedy by way of appeal and the appellate Authority has discussed the matter and given reasons and therefore the objections raised by the petitioner has no merit. 5. The submission has no merit. The basic question for consideration is that the law has given the authority to the Licensing Authority to do an act and the Licensing Authority has to act in quasi judicial manner and it has to deal with the matter by giving the reasons. Non-giving of the reasoning makes the very object of the provision nugatory as the show-cause notice and its reply is for passing the order after dealing the same. If such submission as is advanced by the learned State counsel is accepted, it would lead to a hallow formality, which could not be allowed. 6. The Licensing Authority thus to deal with the matter by giving reasoning. The order of the Licensing Authority does not supply any reason and does not show any application of mind. Reasoning have to be there in the order of the Licensing Authority, when the order of the Licensing Authority does not give reasons, the reasons or the reasoning given by the appellate authority could not be treated as reasons so to validate the order of the Licensing Authority. The Licensing authority is under the obligation to spell out the reasons and pass a speaking order. The order need be reasoned so to be scrutinized by the appellate authority. 7. In the present case, the basic requirement of law is lacking and the appellate authority has failed to discharge its function. The order dated 10.2.95 (Annexure-D) as such, cannot be allowed to stand. The reasoning by the Licensing authority is necessary as it is the subject-matter of scrutiny by the Appellate Authority. The vice-versa position could be a different matter. In the present case, the basic requirement of law is lacking and the appellate authority has failed to discharge its function. The order dated 10.2.95 (Annexure-D) as such, cannot be allowed to stand. The reasoning by the Licensing authority is necessary as it is the subject-matter of scrutiny by the Appellate Authority. The vice-versa position could be a different matter. Where, the Licensing Authority gives the reasons and the appellate authority does not give the reasons, in that event, it can be assumed that the appellate authority agreed with the reasons of the Licensing Authority. In the present case, the orders of the Licensing Authority (Annexure-D) and Appellate Authority (Annexure-E) being laconic, not satisfying the requirement of law, cannot be allowed to stand and are therefore hereby quashed, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter. 8. It would be open to the licensing Authority to pass a reasoned order in case, the petitioner wants to have a hearing, then, he may be heard for which the petitioner has to inform the Licensing Authority that he wants to have the opportunity of personal hearing. The information by the petitioner could be given within 10 days from today and thereafter, the Licensing Authority would fix any date for hearing the petitioner in person, so to take final decision. 9. The writ petition is allowed. The orders dt. 10.2.95 and 17.8.95 are hereby quashed. C.C. as per rules.