JUDGMENT 1. -The impugned order dated 8.5.1999 is challenged by the petitioner on two grounds, (i) that before passing the order the respondent Distt. Magistrate has not given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and (ii) he has not recorded any reasons as provided under the Act. 2. It was submitted by Mr. Bohra for the petitioner that petitioner is a licence holder, therefore, his licence cannot be suspended without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. I am of the opinion that in a case like this where against the petitioner an offence under section 9(B) of the Explosive Substance Act has been registered then that itself would be sufficient for the respondent authority to restrain the petitioner from further dealing with the business. The fact of registering offence against the petitioner under section 9(B) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 has not been at all denied by the petitioner. In that view of the matter any opportunity of hearing would be exercising in futility. Hence, first submission of Mr. Bohra is rejected. 3. Second submission of Mr. Bohra is that no reasons are assigned in the impugned order at Annex. 2, therefore, the order is bad has also no substance. It has been clearly mentioned in the order that on account of offence under section 9(B) of the Explosive Substances Act, registered against him, therefore, the impugned order is passed. That itself is a good reason for passing the impugned order. Except the aforesaid 2 submissions, no other submission was raised.Hence, dismissed.At this stage, a request was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he may approach the District Magistrate for recalling his order. It is always open to do so as and when such request is made the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.Petition dismissed. *******