JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---From the uncontroverted facts as averred in the present petition and solemnly affirmed by the petitioner, we are constrained to note that our judicial conscience simply is shocked and we are left more than stunned. On reading the whole petition and after hearing Shri Talekar, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, we are taken a back and starting wondering whether the Rule of law had vanished when the impugned order was passed by the concerned authorities of the State Government. 2. The precis of the petition is exactly very precise. He has averred to be a citizen of India and an educated landless unemployed without any other source of livelihood. In response to the invitation of the District Supply Officer for applications for licence of wholesale dealer of kerosene, the petitioner had applied for such a licence in the prescribed form and after due scrutiny and satisfaction the District Supply Officer, respondent No. 3 recommended his name to the Collector-the respondent No. 2, the Controller of rationing after getting approval of the District Collector issued to the petitioner a licence in Form II for purchase, sale and storage of kerosene as wholesale dealer in July 1987. The said licence was to remain valid upto 31-12-87 subject to its annual renewal. The petitioner has further disclosed that at that time about 22 such licences were issued by the concerned authorities. The petitioner has also averred that along with him four licences were issued to the wholesale dealers and two such licences were issued after the issuance of licence to the petitioner. The petitioner has further stated that he complied with all the required conditions such as payment of licence fee and deposit of security and all other necessary changes. He was waiting for the order of allotment from the respondent No. 3 who told the petitioner that he would issue the allotment order for the month of August 1987. Though, all other wholesale dealers got allotment orders in the first week of August 1987, the petitioner received the same on 17-1-87. On receipt of the allotment order, he immediately sent a bank draft on 21-8-1987 for Rs. 24,267/- to M/s. Sitaram Rameshwardas and Co., who was appointed as the supplier of kerosene to the wholesale dealers. Though, all other wholesale dealers got allotment orders in the first week of August 1987, the petitioner received the same on 17-1-87. On receipt of the allotment order, he immediately sent a bank draft on 21-8-1987 for Rs. 24,267/- to M/s. Sitaram Rameshwardas and Co., who was appointed as the supplier of kerosene to the wholesale dealers. The petitioner had paid full amount for 12000 litres of kerosene in advance, for one tanker and he was to take the balance after some time. The petitioner was surprised to note that inspite of payment the said M/s. Sitaram Co. was not supplying him kerosene and therefore, he personally met the proprietor of the said company. The petitioner was shocked to hear from him that no kerosene would be supplied to the petitioner as the District Supply Officer, Jalna respondent No. 3 had instructed him not to supply kerosene until further orders. The petitioner immediately rushed to see the respondent No. 3 on 1st September, 1987. He was told by the respondent No. 3 that he was not able to supply the kerosene to the petitioner as he was asked to withhold the same. Soon thereafter, it appears that the petitioner received an order dated 4-9-87 from the District Supply Officer, Jalna, suspending his licence as wholesale dealer of kerosene. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Article 14, being aggrieved by the said order passed by the respondent No. 3 challenging its legality and validity and also questioning the bona fides underneath the same on the ground that the impugned order was passed mala fide and at the instance of the local M.L.A. who had prevailed upon the concerned Minister to cancel the petitioner's wholesale kerosene dealership. 3. We have heard the learned Advocates for both the sides. We have also very carefully gone through the proceedings. We are rather surprised to note that the respondents have not cared to file an affidavit in reply to controvert or deny the serious allegations made by the petitioner in the petition. 3. We have heard the learned Advocates for both the sides. We have also very carefully gone through the proceedings. We are rather surprised to note that the respondents have not cared to file an affidavit in reply to controvert or deny the serious allegations made by the petitioner in the petition. The petitioner had not minced any words as he has put forward his case straightway alleged mala fides on the part of the authorities who have unlawfully cancelled the lawfully granted licence of wholesale dealership of kerosene acting at the instance and under the pressure of one Shri Vilas Kharat, the then sitting Member of Legislative Assembly, Ambad, who appears to have written a letter to the Minister of State for Food and Civil Supplies, Maharashtra State, Shri Vilasrao Sawant, as then he was, requesting the Minister to cancel the licence issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has further averred categorically and in clear terms that the Minister wrote a demi official letter to Shri Surve the District Collector, Jalna, respondent No. 2 ordering him to cancel the petitioner's licence. The petitioner had reproduced in paragraph 15 of his petition the English version of the letter dated 21-8-1987 addressed by Shri V.C. Badiwadekar, Under Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Dept. Bombay, Mantralaya. He has also annexed to the petition the letter written by the local M.L.A. Shri Kharat, Advocate to Shri Vilasrao Sawant, the Minister. He has also annexed the Marathi demi official letter addressed by the Under Secretary to respondent No. 2. The Under Secretary was careful enough to not only communicate the order of the Minister but also enclosed a copy of the letter of the M.L.A. alongwith the said demi official letter. Both these letters speak volumes unequivocally to establish beyond any doubt that the petitioner's licence granted to him legally was cancelled arbitrarily, maliciously and mala fide. We would prefer to reproduce herein below the demi official letter for instant reference and appreciation of the allegations of the petitioners: "V.C. Badiwadekar, Under Secretary, Food Civil Supplies Dept., Bombay, Mantralaya, D.O. No. KER-1587/2825/CS-27 dated 21-8-1987. Sub :---Regarding suspension of kerosene licence of Shri Hamid Shaikh Mahmood at Shahgad taluka Ambad. Dear Surve, The copy of the letter dated 10th August, 1987, written by Advocate Vilas Vithalrao Kharat, M.L.A., Ambad, Dist. Jalna is submitted herewith. Sub :---Regarding suspension of kerosene licence of Shri Hamid Shaikh Mahmood at Shahgad taluka Ambad. Dear Surve, The copy of the letter dated 10th August, 1987, written by Advocate Vilas Vithalrao Kharat, M.L.A., Ambad, Dist. Jalna is submitted herewith. Minister of State for Food Civil Supplies has ordered to suspend the kerosene licence No. 9 of 1987 issued to Hamid Shaikh Mahmood at Shahgad, taluka Ambad, Dist. Jalna and to submit the detail report regarding the issuance of new kerosene licence. You are requested to personally look into the matter and take necessary action and to send compliance report of an action regarding suspension taken by you. You are also directed to state that whether there were substantial reasons for issuing new kerosene licence during last few months. You are also directed to state the reason for issuing new kerosene licences and whether it was necessary to issue new kerosene licences. You are directed to enquire into the matter and submit the detail report with your remarks immediately. Your affectionately, Sd/- (V.C. Bandiwadekar)" To be on safer side we have ourselves read the Marathi letters instead of relying on the English translation given by the petitioner in the body of the petition. We may mention here that the petitioner had reproduced the English translation of the said letter in the petition which he has solemnly affirmed. The local M.L.A. Shri V.V. Kharat, who also happens to be an Advocate, had written to Shri Vilasraoji Sawant, giving specific subject of kerosene licence No. 9/87 issued to the petitioner by name. It is pointed out by Shri Kharat, that in Shahgad Village and the area more than 10 kerosene licences were issued. He had also written that there was already black marketing of kerosene going on and this fact was brought to the notice of the Minister. The M.L.A. further opines that by giving new licences, such black marketing would be encouraged. The last and the only request in the said letter is that the licence given to the petitioner Hamid Sk. Mahmood should be suspended and that such a request made by him should be respected. In response to the said letter of the local M.L.A. Shri Kharat, Advocate, it appears that the Under Secretary, Shri Badiwadekar, addressed a demi official letter to Shri Surve, the respondent No. 2. Mahmood should be suspended and that such a request made by him should be respected. In response to the said letter of the local M.L.A. Shri Kharat, Advocate, it appears that the Under Secretary, Shri Badiwadekar, addressed a demi official letter to Shri Surve, the respondent No. 2. From the letter it is very clear that it was issued by the said Under Secretary under his signature and under reference and on the subject of suspension of the petitioner's kerosene licence The Under Secretary gives reference to the letter written by Shri Kharat. He has also annexed a copy of the said letter alongwith demi official letter. He has further written that the Hon'ble State Minister for Food and Civil Supplies has ordered to suspend the kerosene licence No. 9/87 issued to Shri Hamid Sk. Mahamood, Shahgad, taluka Ambad, Dist. Jalna. It was further added that report regarding the newly issued licences should be submitted. In the second paragraph of the letter the author has exerted to draw the pointed attention of the addressee that he should personally look into the matter and take necessary action in the matter. The addressee was required to report back to the signatory regarding the implementation of the suspension order and also in respect of kerosene licences issued during the preceding months and the reasons and necessity for issuance of such licences. After thorough enquiry a detailed report with his comments were called for immediately. The District Supply Officer the respondent No. 3, on receipt of the demi official letter dated 21-5-1987 immediately acted and suspended the petitioner's licence by his order 4-9-1987. This Officer was also very meticulous and careful in basing his order on the demi official letter as referred hereinabove and has also not forgotten to write that it was done after approval by the respondent No. 2, the District Collector. He has placed his service at the doors of the Minister through the Under Secretary by sending a copy of the suspension order as a proof of implementation of the order conveyed in the demi officer letter. He has placed his service at the doors of the Minister through the Under Secretary by sending a copy of the suspension order as a proof of implementation of the order conveyed in the demi officer letter. From this letter it is however, not clear whether he had also submitted his report and his comments in respect of other licences issued to other 21 dealers in the area and about the burning issue of black marketing of kerosene about which the M.L.A. as well as the Minister had expressed their concern. Such a report indeed would be strictly confidential not to be disclosed to anyone. 4. As far as the apparent anxiety of the local M.L.A. against the black market of the kerosene, according to us, to say the least, was hollow. For the existing black market of the kerosene as alleged by the M.L.A. the petitioner could not have been blamed at all as he had not even received the first instalment of the quota inspite of the payment made by him. It therefore, cannot be said that the petitioner had indulged in the black market of the kerosene. Secondly, the phoney anxiety of the M.L.A. against the black market of the kerosene is exposed by the fact that out of 22 new kerosene dealers, he found only one to be removed to cure the curse of the black marketing of the kerosene in the area. He had no complaint against the other 21 kerosene dealers. We therefore, smack mala fides and malice on the part of the M.L.A. who had deliberately singled out the petitioner for the reasons best known to the M.L.A. In his letter to the Minister he has asserted that only 10 dealers were required. However, he had no objection or complaint against the other 11 dealers and his fight against the black market of the kerosene appears to have been satisfied by removing the petitioner alone from the scene. All these circumstances indicate that he was actuated by malice against the petitioner who was picked up by the M.L.A. to be hounded after. It is most unfortunate that not only the Minister but even the bureaucrats have failed in their duty to act properly in the matter. 5. All these circumstances indicate that he was actuated by malice against the petitioner who was picked up by the M.L.A. to be hounded after. It is most unfortunate that not only the Minister but even the bureaucrats have failed in their duty to act properly in the matter. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, we have absolutely no manner of doubt that the suspension or cancellation of the petitioner's kerosene licence was illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, malicious and in contravention of the provisions of the law i.e. section 3(2)(c), (d) (i), (ii) and (j). It is also in contravention of the Maharashtra Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1966, Clause 10 which provides for cancellation or suspension of licence. It is elementary that no such punitive action can be taken without hearing the concerned party and without giving any show cause notice and without considering the explanation or reply given by such delinquent party. The law expects a reasonable opportunity of hearing before cancellation or suspension of licence of such a party who must be informed the reasons, the lapses, and the misconduct levelled against him to attract the penalty of cancellation or suspension of licence. He must be told that he had contravened certain terms and conditions of the licence and he must be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before imposing any such punishment. According to us no such penal action can be taken in contravention of the provisions of the law as well as in contravention of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner is certainly entitled to get protection of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, that the respondents as the State and its agency or instrumentality shall act reasonably and never arbitrarily maliciously or mala fide. We have no manner of doubt that the whole action taken against the petitioner by Shri Vilasrao Sawant, the Minister of Food and Civil Supplies, as then he was, was actuated by malice in law as the same has been taken at the instance of the local M.L.A. who had named the petitioner to be singled out and to be targeted. He himself has pointed out that 10 dealers would have been enough in the area if his concern was regarding black marketing of the kerosene going on in the area, he would have requested the Minister for cancellation or suspension of all the licences given to others whose number exceeded the number 10 kerosene dealers who were found adequate in the area. The petitioner himself has given a list of 22 such dealers. Except the petitioner no other licence has been cancelled or suspended to abolish the black marketing of the kerosene in the area. In appears that the M.L.A. thought that if the petitioner's licence was to be cancelled or suspended, he would succeed in removing the black marketing of the kerosene in the area. We fail to understand how and why the petitioner alone has singled out by the M.L.A and why Shri Vilasrao Sawant, the then Minister for Food and Civil Supplies, acted quickly at the instance of the said M.L.A. to oblige him and to penalize the petitioner in the manner in which he has done. We can very well understand and appreciate the anxiety of the M.L.A. who represented his constituency and who was anxious to tackle the black marketing of the kerosene in his area. We however, fail to understand why the Minister as well as the M.L.A. did not consider his moral and legal duty to act according to law. It appears that Shri Vilasrao Sawant, acted in arbitrary and unreasonable manner while suspending the kerosene licence of the petitioner which was issued to him in accordance with law. As far as the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned they cannot be blamed as they had acted in accordance with the dictates of the Minister. We however, appreciate that both the authorities have put all the facts on record which would speak for themselves. The respondent No. 3 the District Supply Officer, Jalna has been careful in drafting the letter of suspension of the licence. He has not alleged any contravention of the terms of the licence issued to the petitioner to be a reason for the petitioner to attract such an extreme action against him. He has clearly mentioned that he was doing so in accordance with the demi official order received by him. 6. He has not alleged any contravention of the terms of the licence issued to the petitioner to be a reason for the petitioner to attract such an extreme action against him. He has clearly mentioned that he was doing so in accordance with the demi official order received by him. 6. We are constrained to observe that the whole action of suspension of the petitioner's licence No. 9/87 dated 2-1-1987 was illegal, improper, unjust, malicious, mala fide and arbitrary and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside forthwith. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, we allow the writ petition and make the Rule absolute in terms of prayer Clause (B). We direct the Government of Maharashtra and also the respondent No. 4 Shri Vilas Vithalrao Kharat, to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- each to the petitioner. Petition allowed. -----