S. B. SINHA, ACJ. ( 1 ) -THIS appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 24. 2. 98 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the writ petitioner wherein he had prayed for the following relief:- (A)"a writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to show cause as to why the order dated 30. 11. 1994 (annexure 'a' to this petition) passed by respondent No. 1 shall not be quashed and/or rescind at once; (b)a writ of and/or in the nature Mandamus commanding the respondents to show cause as to why the Mmo. No. 5241 (53) dated 19. 10. 1989 issued by the respondent No. 5 shall not be set aside and/or rescind; (c)a writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to issue a licence for levy-free sugar wholesale in favour of your petitioner; was dismissed. " ( 2 ) THE fact of the matter lies in a very narrated compass. The petitioner intends to deal in sugar. Admittedly the filed is covered by an order issued by the State of West Bengal in this behalf in exercise of its power conferred upon it under the delegating notification issued by the Central Government dated 9th June, 1978 in terms of section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, known as West Bengal Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1980. Although the petitioner's application for grant of licence was considered and the petitioner deposited the security amount in terms of paragraph 6 of the said order, no licence having been granted, he filed the writ petition before this court which was marked as C. R. 9880 (W) of 1992 and by an order dated 14. 9. 94 a learned Single Judge of this court directed the Sub-Divisional Controller (Fands) to consider the petitioner's representation within a period of 8 weeks from the date of service of copy of the order as well as a copy of the writ application in accordance with law and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order. Pursuant to the said direction the respondent No. 1 passed an order on 30. 11. 94 in terms whereof the representation filed by the appellant herein was rejected, inter alia, on the ground; (1)the offer made by the appellant to the effect that he was ready to invest Rs. Pursuant to the said direction the respondent No. 1 passed an order on 30. 11. 94 in terms whereof the representation filed by the appellant herein was rejected, inter alia, on the ground; (1)the offer made by the appellant to the effect that he was ready to invest Rs. 80,000/- was quite inadequate for such business in dealing in sugar. (2)the security amount deposited by him was contrary to administrative instruction issued by the State of West Bengal as contained in G. O. No. 11 (54) FS dated 2. 1. 1989. (3)his signature in the affidavit differs with that obtained at the deposition during hearing. ( 3 ) THE appellant being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order filed a writ application before this court which has been dismissed by an order under appeal. ( 4 ) MR. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised three contentions in support of this appeal. The learned counsel submits that the learned Judge erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the appellant having been directed to deposit the security amount must have been found eligible to carry on business in sugar and in that view of the matter it was not proper for the Licensing Authority to withdraw the said permission. It was further submitted that Licensing Authority took into consideration wholly irrelevant facts. The learned counsel has urged that business can be carried out by a person upon taking loan from the Bank. ( 5 ) PARA 2 (c) and 2 (m) of the said order defines "dealer" and "wholesaler" respectively in the following terms:2 (C) "dealer" means a person who is engaged in any business or undertaking involving sale, purchase for sale or storage for sale of sugar in quantities exceeding 10 quintals at any one time, either on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person or as a commission agent but does not include a producer as defined in clause (c) or paragraph 2 of the Sugar (Control) Order, 1966. 2 (m)"wholesaler" means a dealer who sells sugar to any other dealer or a bulk consumer or with the permission of the licensing authority to a consumer". 2 (m)"wholesaler" means a dealer who sells sugar to any other dealer or a bulk consumer or with the permission of the licensing authority to a consumer". ( 6 ) PARAGRAPH 3 of the said order provides that no person shall carry on business as a dealer or purchase and store sugar as a bulk consumer except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued by the licensing authority. Paragraph 4 specifies that an application for grant of licence should be filed in From "a". Paragraph 6 reads thus :"deposit of security.- (1) Every dealer, not being a registered co-operative society, applying the licence under this Order shall, before a licence is issued to him, deposit with the licensing authority a security deposit in the form of a treasury challan showing cash deposit into a Government Treasury under the head "revenue Deposit" or in the form of a postal savings bank pledged to the licensing authority for the due performance of the conditions subject to which the licence is granted to him. The value of security deposit will be- (a)rupees 1,000 for a dealer who will store 100 quintals of sugar or more at a time; (b)rupees 500 for a dealer who will store 50 quintals or more but less than 200 quintals of sugar at a time; and (c)rupees 200 for a dealer who will store more that 10 quintals but less than 50 quintals of sugar at a time. (2)without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 10, if the licensing authority is satisfied that the licence has contravened any of the conditions of the licence and that a forfeiture of the security deposit is called for, it may, after giving the licensee a reasonable opportunity of stating his case against the forfeiture, pass orders forfeiting the whole or any part of the security deposit made by the licensee and communicate a copy of the order to him. (3)if at any time the security deposit of a licensee falls short of the amount specified in sub-paragraph (1), the licensee shall, on being required by the licensing authority, forthwith deposit such further security as to make up such amount. (4)upon due compliance by the licensee of the obligations under the licence, amount of security or such part thereof which is not forfeited as aforesaid shall be returned to the licensee after termination of the licence. (4)upon due compliance by the licensee of the obligations under the licence, amount of security or such part thereof which is not forfeited as aforesaid shall be returned to the licensee after termination of the licence. " ( 7 ) PARAGRAPH 7 of the said order empowers the licensing authority to refuse, to grant, re-issue or renew the licence which reads thus:"power of licensing authority to refuse, to grant, re-issue or renew licence.-The licensing authority may, after giving the applicant an opportunity of stating his case in writing and for reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to grant or re-issue or renew a licence: provided that in exercising its powers under this paragraph the licensing authority shall have due regard to- (a)the number of licences already issued this Order in respect of the locality; (b)the availability of Sugar in the locality; (c)the pattern of trade and commerce in sugar in the locality; (d)the applicants' financial capacity, suitability and adequacy of storage godowns in his possession and other relevant matters; (e) whether the application contains any misrepresentation as to an essential fact; (f) contravention, if any, of the provisions of this order or of any other law for the time being in force relating to an essential commodity by the application; and (g)such facts or circumstances asrise a reasonable suspicion that applicant is carrying on business in an essential commodity in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the general public. " ( 8 ) THERE cannot be any doubt that the licensing authority can exercise his power only in terms of the statute. A statutory authority must act within its four corners. ( 9 ) IT has not been disputed that the manner of deposit of security amount as contained in the aforementioned circular letter dated 19. 10. 89 had been the subject-matter of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in C. O. No. 1048 (W) of 1992 disposed of on 21. 7. 92 wherein it has been held:"having regard to the submissions I am, however, of the opinion that there is no valid reason for withholding the issuance of licence to the petitioner which the Sub-Divisional controller had already decided to grant in his favour and also informed him accordingly requiring him to make certain deposit which was also complied with by the petitioner. Any departmental instruction or procedure which is a purely internal administrative matter cannot over-ride a decision which a competent authority has already taken under statutory provision. Here the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies being the competent authority to decide on the question of granting any licence under the West Bengal Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1980 and he having already taken a decision in favour of granting licence to the petitioner the same cannot be now set at naught on the ground that any internal departmental instructions might not have been complied with". ( 10 ) IN that view of the matter as was rightly submitted by Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant, the said circular letter could not have been taken into consideration for the purpose of withdrawal of the permission for deposit of the security amount. Furthermore, the security amount was directed to be deposited by the petitioner upon having been found eligible for grant of licence, inasmuch as, such security deposit was demanded only for the purpose of observance of the terms and conditions of the licence. It is not and cannot be the case of the respondent that deposit of security amount was the condition precedent for filing of the application for grant of licence. Furthermore, the licensing authority has not spelt out in details as to why the sum of Rs. 80,000/- was not found to be sufficient for dealing in business. No reason has been assigned in support thereof and thus the said order cannot be sustained. So far as the third ground for rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of licence is concerned, if appears to be not correct. If the respondent No. 1 had any doubt as regard identity of the petitioner, he could have kept the matter and in any event should have granted an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before arriving at the said finding. ( 11 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained which is accordingly set aside. ( 12 ) THIS appeal is allowed. The judgment and order is set aside and the writ application filed by the writ petitioner is allowed by setting aside the order dated 30. 11. ( 11 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained which is accordingly set aside. ( 12 ) THIS appeal is allowed. The judgment and order is set aside and the writ application filed by the writ petitioner is allowed by setting aside the order dated 30. 11. 1994 as contained in annexure "h" to the writ application and the matter is remitted back to the Licensing authority with a direction upon him to consider the matter afresh upon taking into consideration the observations made hereinbefore. ( 13 ) THE Licensing authority must pass an order at an early date and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied within three days from the date of receipt of the record. M. H. S. Ansari, J.-I agree. Appeal allowed.