Judgment 1. All the writ petitions in this batch challenge identical orders of termination of dealerships under the public distribution system and the petitioners, in each of these cases, seek similar relief(s). All these writ petitions were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners in each of these cases held retail licences under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) order, 1984 and each of the petitioners was also granted dealership under the public distribution system. By the impugned order the dealership of the petitioners have been terminated. 3. Each of the petitioners was given a notice asking why his dealership might not be cancelled. All the petitioners filed their respective show cause. The licensing authority thereupon issued the order of termination of the dealership in each case. The licensing authority apparently observed the formality in that separate show cause notices were issued to each of the petitioners and on receipt of their show cause, separate orders were passed terminating the dealerships. But from the materials brought to the notice of the court an impression is created that the entire matter was pre-judged and the issuances of the show cause notice was an empty formality. 4. It is to be noted that in each case both the show cause notice and the order of termination of the dealership were issued in identical printed forms in which simply the name of the licencee, his address and the number of his licence were filled up in the blank spaces provided in the form. 5. The printed notice referred to several grounds on which the dealership was liable to be cancelled. It is not clear whether all the grounds stated in the notice were applicable in case of all the petitioners proceeded against. Moreover, as it is bound to happen in the notice in a printed form, the grounds for termination of the dealership were stated in a vague and general manner without the slightest details of the alleged irregularities. 6. Such a vague notice could elicit only a vague and general show cause and that was the case in respect of each of the petitioners. Therefore orders were issued terminating the dealership of all the petitioners. 6. Such a vague notice could elicit only a vague and general show cause and that was the case in respect of each of the petitioners. Therefore orders were issued terminating the dealership of all the petitioners. Though these orders were issued separately in each proceeding, but these orders are also in printed forms and a number of reasons are assigned for terminating the dealership in each case. From a perusal of the termination order, it cannot be said whether all the grounds for termination were applicable in case of each of the petitioner. 7. Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the licensing authority was dealing with the licences in large numbers and against each of the licencee there were identical charges and, therefore, this mode was adopted for saving time and for the sake of conveniences. Learned counsel further submitted that it was only a case of termination of dealership and not of cancellation of a licence where grounds for cancellation might have been required to be stated in greater detail. 8. It is true that a case of termination of dealership is entirely different from a case of cancellation of a licence under the Unification Order and the two proceedings cannot be equated or put at par but it is equally true that even in a case of termination of dealership the State must not appear to be acting unreasonably and arbitrarily and its officials must not appear to be acting without proper application of mind. 9. An order in a printed form is viewed by a court of law with distaste and suspicion. This is because an order in printed form lies wide open to the charge of prejudging the matter and non- application of mind by the authority issuing the order. It may not always be the case and the authority issuing the order might have arrived at his conclusion after examining the material facts of a large number of cases which may be identical in facts and circumstances but as the old saying goes, justice should not only be done but, it should also appear to have been done. It may not always be the case and the authority issuing the order might have arrived at his conclusion after examining the material facts of a large number of cases which may be identical in facts and circumstances but as the old saying goes, justice should not only be done but, it should also appear to have been done. A procedee must have the confidence and assurance that his case received due consideration by the concerned authority and he must not be left with the feeling that some special feature of his case, which made his case different from the rest was omitted to be considered by the authority. The ficensing authority the concerned authority must, therefore, avoid the practice of issuing orders, prejudicially affecting the rights of a person in a printed form. 10. For the reasons stated above, I am unable to uphold the impugned orders of termination of the dealerships of the petitioners. The impugned orders which are at Annexure 1 in all these writ petitions are accordingly set aside. If the facts and circumstances of case justify, it will be open to the concerned authority to proceed afresh against the petitioners, give them fresh show cause notices and pass appropriate orders after due consideration of the show cause, if any, that might be filed by them. 11. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed subject to the aforesaid observations and directions.