JUDGMENT M.Srinivasan, C.J. (Oral) :- This writ petition is directed against the order passed by District Food and Supply Controller, chamba in exercise of the powers vested with him under clauses 14 and 15 of the authorization issued under Annexure P/5 bearing Code No. 906/GM, withdrawing the same and cancelling the allotment of fair price shop to the petitioner. By the said order the security deposit of Rs. 200/- pledged to the said officer was forfeited in all in favour of the Government. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner has preferred this writ petition on the ground that no personal opportunity has been given to him as contemplated by clause 14 of the authorization referred to above. Clause 14 reads as under: "14. Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 12 the authorities issuing authority is satisfied that the depot holder has contravened any of the conditions of the authorization may order the forfeiture of whole or any part of the security deposit after giving the wholesaler personal opportunity of stating his case against the forfeiture." 2. The contention of the petitioner is that in the show cause notice specific allegations were made against him and he was prepared to show all the relevant records to the authorities if he was given an opportunity to do so. In his reply he had made an offer to that effect and also prayed for a personal hearing before the concerned official. It is also pointed out by the petitioners counsel that the members of the local public wanted him to continue with the fair price shop and there was no reason for cancelling or withdrawing the authority given to him. 3. In so fir as the wording of clause 14 is concerned, it especially refers a personal opportunity being given to the concerned person in case an order forfeiting the security deposit or any part thereof is to be made. There are two other clauses in the same authorization, namely, Clauses 13 and 15 which read as follows: "13. 3. In so fir as the wording of clause 14 is concerned, it especially refers a personal opportunity being given to the concerned person in case an order forfeiting the security deposit or any part thereof is to be made. There are two other clauses in the same authorization, namely, Clauses 13 and 15 which read as follows: "13. The Depot Holder shall not contravene any of the terms and conditions of the authorization or any direction issued to him and if the depot holder or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf contravenes any of the terms and conditions or directions then without prejudice to any other action, they may be taken against him his authorization may be cancelled or suspended by order in writing of the authority who has issued authorization. 15. This authorization can be withdrawn at any time without assigning any reason." Under clauses 15 no reason may even have assigned for withdrawing the authorization. Under Clause 13 if there is any violation or contravention, if any, of the terms and conditions of authorization then without prejudice to any other action, which may be taken against the person concerned, his authorization can be cancelled or suspended. In this case the authority has exercised the powers under Clauses 14 and 15. 4. It is also seen from the record that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and only after getting his reply the order in question has been made. In such circumstances, it is not possible for us to interfere with that part of the order which relates to cancellation of the allotment of fair price shop and the withdrawal of the authorization. However, with regard to the forfeiture of security deposit, we find that the terms, of clause 24 have not been complied with. Consequently that part of the order will not stand. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that entire impugned order is one and that part of the order which forfeits the security deposit cannot be separated from the other part of the order as it is based on the same reasoning. We are unable to accept this contentions Clause 14 stands independent of the clauses 13 and 15. We are unable to accept this contentions Clause 14 stands independent of the clauses 13 and 15. In fact Clause 14 contains the expression "without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 12", clause 13 also contains the expression "without prejudice to any other action" Clause 15 is very specific that the authorization can be withdrawn at any time without assigning any reason. In such circumstances that part of the order which forfeits the security given by the petitioner can be separated from the other part of the order. In as much as that part of the order is made without compliance of the terms off clause 14 of the authorization it is not valid in law consequently, we quash that part of the order in annexure P/l. It follows therefore that the order directing withdrawal of the authorization and cancellation of the allotment of fair price shop is valid and it will stand. Only that part of the order which forfeits the security deposit amounting to Rs.200/- to the Government is quashed and the respondents are bound to refund the amount to the petitioner. 6. In so far as the petitioners case regarding allotment in future is concerned, if he is eligible therefore that may be considered on an appropriate application at appropriate time by the concerned authorities This Writ petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Interim order passed earlier is vacated.