Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, who was holding a licence to deal in the essential commodities was issued a show cause notice. After taking into consideration the show-cause submitted by the petitioner the licensing authority directed that the amount of security be forfeited, while in fact no security was in deposit at the time the said order was passed. According to the petitioner the deposit of the security has already been abandoned, therefore, the licence-holders are not depositing the security under public distribution scheme. 3. The petitioners contention is that once the order for forfeiture of the security was passed that was the end of the matter and the petitioner could only be held liable to deposit a sum equivalent to the security. It is also submitted by him that on 28.10.1998 he received the notice and on the same date deposited the amount in the State Treasury but unfortunately the fact in relation to the said deposit could not be brought to the notice of the Sub-divisional Officer as the S.D.O. was not available in his office. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after deposit of the said amount of Rs. 300/- the S.D.O. by his order has cancelled the licence observing that the fine amount of Rs. 300/- has not been deposited. The appellate authority though was informed about the deposit did not take into consideration the fact simply saying that the petitioner was a defaulter and had not deposited the security amount. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that the petitioner did not deposit the amount in time and as the amount was deposited late the concerned licensing authority was entitled to cancel the licence. 6. I have heard the parties. While deciding the matter into the lapses in relation to a licence the licensing authority has jurisdiction to forfeit the security, suspend or revoke the licence. Once it passes the order then it loses its jurisdiction to pass any order in future. In the present case instead of suspending or cancelling the licences the licensing authority directed forfeiture of the security amount. If that was so the authority was entitled to recover the said amount, treating the same to be fine and it could not pass any further orders. In the present case instead of suspending or cancelling the licences the licensing authority directed forfeiture of the security amount. If that was so the authority was entitled to recover the said amount, treating the same to be fine and it could not pass any further orders. Even otherwise from the records it would clearly appear that the notice was received by the petitioner on 28.10.1998 and on the very same date the said amount was deposited by the petitioner, the fact of the deposit should have been taken into consideration before passing the order impugned as contained in the order dated 18.11.1998. In the opinion of this Court non-consideration of this fact by all the concerned authorities have vitiated their orders. The said orders can not be allowed to stand. The same are quashed.