Judgment Nagendra Rai, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.3.1998, issued under the signature of the Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Bokaro. Respondent No. 3 informing the petitioner that his licence for the year 1998-99 for running a beer bar under the provisions of the Excise Act has not been renewed by the Deputy Commissioner for public interest as well as in the interest of revenue. 2. The admitted fact is that the petitioner was a licensee under the Excise Act to run a beer bar. He applied for renewal of the licence for the year 1998-99 and impugned order has been passed. 3. No person can claim renewal of licence as a matter of right but that does not mean that the authority who is vested with the power to renew the licence will act in arbitrary manner in the sense that without assigning any cogent reason, it can refuse to renew the licence. 4. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the power to grant licence includes the power to refuse renewal of the licence and the concerned authority has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner. 5. In case the authority decided not to renew the licence then it has to assign reasons, though not elaborately for not renewal of the licence. The absence of reason will make the order vulnerable in law. This apart, the superior authority as well as the Court cannot know the reasons which persuaded the authority to refuse the renewal. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that except the vague statement, no reasons have been given to refuse the renewal. On this ground alone, I am inclined to quash the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 3, is quashed and the mater is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner to consider afresh and take a decision within one month from the date of production of a copy of this order.