Judgment : Oral Order 1. By these Writ Petitions, the licensees have challenged the suspension of their licences issued under the Maharashtra Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1962, hereinafter referred to as the "Rules", by the licensing authority and its confirmation by the appellate authority. 2. In Writ Petition no.2195 of 2008, 2196 of 2008 and 2198 of 2008, admittedly, no show cause notices were issued to the licensees. The submission on behalf of the authorities is that show cause notice was issued to Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd., which is a sister concern of these three licensees and, therefore, it was not necessary to issue separate show cause notices to these licensees. Further, according to the respondents, since these licensees were operating from the same premises, show cause notices were not necessary. We are unable to accept this contention. The licensees are independent companies and Subhiksha Trading Services Limited & anr., to whom a specific show cause was issued is also an independent company like the licensees, and the licence applied for was granted in the name of each of these independent companies. The authorities cannot be heard to say that it was not necessary to issue a show cause notice independently to the licensees. There is also no merit in the contention since the same licensees were operating in the same premises, it was not necessary to issue a separate show cause notice. On this ground alone, we consider it appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned orders in Writ Petition nos.2195 of 2008, 2196 of 2008 and 2198 of 2008. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned orders. The authorities shall be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings, in accordance with law. 3. Coming to Writ Petition no.2197 of 2008, the petitioner is a company holding a licence under the Food & Drugs Act. The show cause notice alleged breach of certain conditions of the licence issued to the petitioners. After considering the reply to the show cause notice, the licensing authority i.e. the Asstt. Commissioner suspended the licence for a period of ten days. The petitioners carried the matter in appeal to the Commissioner. The Commissioner has enhanced the period of suspension from 10 days to 20 days. 4. Admittedly, no grievance had been made by the licensing authorities before the appellate authority that the suspension order passed by the Asstt. Commissioner was too light. The petitioners carried the matter in appeal to the Commissioner. The Commissioner has enhanced the period of suspension from 10 days to 20 days. 4. Admittedly, no grievance had been made by the licensing authorities before the appellate authority that the suspension order passed by the Asstt. Commissioner was too light. The learned counsel had not been able to point out any provision in law which empowers the appellate authority to enhance the punishment imposed upon the licensee. Rule 5(7) of the maharashtra Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1962, confers a right of appeal on ‘any person aggrieved by the decision of the licensing authority’. Obviously, the right of appeal is not conferred on the licensing authority. The Appellate Authority could not have, therefore, enhanced the period of suspension in an appeal by the licensee. On this ground, we consider it appropriate to set aside the order in appeal. The appellate authority shall be at liberty to consider the matter afresh. 5. That apart, we find that the order of the appellate authority suffers from non-application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellate authority has upheld the order of the Asstt. Commissioner without applying its mind to the specific alleged violations. The original order of the licensing authority at ground no.3 states that the walls were not appropriately painted. Therefore, there is a breach of rule 5(3) of the Rules and term no.4(a) of the licence. We do not see any reference of rule 5(3) to the case which regulates the power conferred on the licensing authority to grant the licence. Further, condition 4(a) reads as follows:- "4. License every year at least once or the officer examining necessary period kitchen and in which food articles production is made as such each rooms walls and ceiling will give completely colour. If this place is give oil colours then working place except for all the place within 5 years again given colour. (a) License to all such each room or place will make arrangement of putting colour so that it can be good condition can wash and clean." Sic) We do not see how the licence could have been suspended merely by stating that the walls were not appropriately painted. (a) License to all such each room or place will make arrangement of putting colour so that it can be good condition can wash and clean." Sic) We do not see how the licence could have been suspended merely by stating that the walls were not appropriately painted. In ground no.6, certain insanitary conditions such as spitting of pan and gutkha has been referred to as being in violation of rules 4(3) and 5(3) of the Rules. As stated earlier, rule 5(3) deals with grant of licence and rule 4(3) deals with the powers of Local Authority to appoint Food Inspectors. There appears to be gross non-application of mind to the facts of the case. 6. The appellate authority has not taken care to consider which acts of the licensee has resulted in violation of specific rules. 7. For these reasons and in particular, since the period of suspension has been enhanced without due process of law, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the appellate authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.