JUDGMENT This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the imposition and recovery of penalty for failure to lift the minimum quantity of liquor. The petitioner is a liquor contractor. He was granted licence for Bijapur, Bhopalpatnam and Madded for the year 1992-93. There was provision in the contract for lifting a minimum quantity of liquor and on failure to do so a penalty of not more than Rs. 25/- per litre could be imposed by the Collector. A penalty of Rs. 2,384/- for the first quarter and of Rs. 1,75,870/- for the third quarter has been imposed upon the petitioner as per notices Annexure P-4 and P-5 issued by the District Excise Officer, Bastar. In these notices it is mentioned that the Collector has imposed these penalties. The demand notice for recovery of Rs. 2,60,650/- has been issued by the Additional Tehsildar (Excise). He has also issued the attachment order Annexure P-7. Thereafter proclamation for sale of a bullet motor-cycle arid the agricultural lands belonging to the petitioner have been issued. These are Annexure P-9 and P-10. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not given any show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing before the imposition of penalty on him by the Collector. He was not supplied any liquor from 1.4.92 to 20.4.1992 and further he was not supplied liquor in pouches and he could put up his case before the Collector if he had been given a show cause notice. The condition of lifting the minimum quantity could not be enforced against him when the liquor was not supplied as per requisitions made by him. The penalty which has been imposed is too heavy. No return has been filed on behalf of the respondents. After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides this Court is of the opinion that it was necessary to issue show cause notice and afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before imposition of penalty on him. It has been observed by a Division Bench of this Court in Sharma & Company v. State of M.P. 1981 JLJ 463 = 1981 MPLJ 422 that the condition does not make it obligatory on the Collector to impose penalty in every case or to impose maximum penalty whenever he decides to impose penalty. It has been observed by a Division Bench of this Court in Sharma & Company v. State of M.P. 1981 JLJ 463 = 1981 MPLJ 422 that the condition does not make it obligatory on the Collector to impose penalty in every case or to impose maximum penalty whenever he decides to impose penalty. The condition leaves it open to the Collector to decide having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case whether it is a fit case for imposition of penalty and if so as to what penalty should be imposed. This has been quoted with approval by another Division Bench in R.K. Traders v. State of M.P. 1995 MPLJ 728 . In Ratanlal v. State of M.P. 1988 JLJ 32 = 1988 MPU 52 the imposition of penalty was held invalid as no opportunity to explain was given to the licensee who had failed to lift minimum quantity prescribed in the licence. In the present case no opportunity of hearing or show cause notice was given to the petitioner by the Collector before the imposition of penalty. Therefore, the orders imposing the penalty and the recovery are set aside. Respondent No. 2 Collector, Bastar shall give show cause notice· to the petitioner against the proposed action of imposition of penalty and after hearing him pass a reasoned order. Annexures P-4, P-5, P-9 and P-10 are quashed.