JUDGMENT M Srinivasan, C J.—The petitioner was having a licence in Form No. 11 issued to him in the first instance on 12 4-1982 upto 31-12-1982, which was renewed by an order dated 1-12-1982 upto 31-12-1983. 2 But, however, when there was an inspection of the petitioners shop, it was found that the proper licence for the petitioner should have been in Form No. 12 and not in Form No 11 Hence, the licence already issued on Form No. 11 was suspended on 21-7-1983 until 27-7-1983 and on 27 7-1983 it was cancelled. The cancellation was challenged by the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 411 of 1984 He had also applied for the licence in Form No. XII. When that writ petition came up for orders, it was represented by tie Assistant Advocate General that the application of the petitioner for g ant of licence in Form XII pending before the District Magistrate, Solan shall be disposed of in one way or the other and not later than by two months. On such statement, the petitioner withdrew the petition and it was dismissed as withdrawn. That was on 24-9-1984. 3. The petitioners application was rejected and communication was sent to the petitioner by the Additional District Magistrate, Solan on 20-11-1984. That was followed by another communication dated 4-1-1985, in which it was stated that there were already seven licenced Arms and Ammunition dealers in the District and out of whom three were carrying business in Solan town, the Government felt that a saturation point had been reached. Consequently, application for licence was rejected. The petitioner filed an application for review which was rejected. Aggrieved petitioner has filed tl is petition. 4. It is found that the petitioner was not heard before order of rejection was passed. The petitioner contends before us that under section 14 of the Arms Act r ejection of an application for licence could be only on grounds specified in that section. The learned Assistant Advocate General tried to bring the rejection under section 14 (1) (b) (ii) of the Act. That is a matter which is to be considered by the competent authority. It is also stated in the reply of the respondents that as per policy, the Government has stopped issuing licence to more dealers who are doing business in Arms and Ammunition. That is a matter which is to be considered by the competent authority. It is also stated in the reply of the respondents that as per policy, the Government has stopped issuing licence to more dealers who are doing business in Arms and Ammunition. That is again another matter which is to be gone into by the concerned authority. 5. It has been held by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in State of U. P. v. Jaswant Singh Sarna, AIR 1968 All 383, that when an application is considered, the concerned authority has to deal in a quasi-judicial manner and has to hear the party concerned and give adequate opportunity to make representation before disposing of the application. The Division Bench has also referred to the provisions of Article 19 of the Constitution of India and pointed out that there is a fundamental right to carry on a trade and when a restriction is imposed upon such fundamental right the party concerned should be heard before refusing to recognize that right. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the concerned authority are quashed. The concerned authority is directed to give opportunity to the petitioner to make representation and after taking into consideration his representation, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. CM. P. No. 144o/199I : Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed as unnecessary in view of the disposal of the main petition. Petition dismissed.