JUDGMENT Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—The petitioner, a fair price shop licensee, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned orders of cancellation of licence of fair price shop with the allegation that action is politically motivated and violative of principles of natural justice. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition, are as under : The petitioner possessed a licence to run a fair price shop in village Afjalpur District Moradabad. By an order dated 24.10.2007, the licence of fair price shop of the petitioner, was suspended and later on, cancelled on 13.9.2007. An appeal was preferred and the learned Commissioner, Moradabad had stayed the order dated 25.10.2007 as well as the order dated 13.9.2007 and later on, allowed the appeal by judgment and order dated 27.12.2007. The appellate authority while allowing the revision contained in Annexure 1 observed that the order of cancellation of licence was passed without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. The allegation with regard to non-supply of foodgrains and kerosene oil to the card holders, were found to be incorrect by the appellate authority. No reason was given by the Deputy Collector while cancelling the fair price shop licence of the petitioner while disbelieving reply. 3. In compliance of appellate judgment (supra), licence was restored on 29.12.2007 and thereafter, the petitioner had lifted the commodities on 30.12.2007. Suddenly, on very next date, a surprise inspection of the petitioner’s fair price shop was done on 31.12.2007. At the time of inspection, the petitioner was not present and had gone to medical treatment to Moradabad for her heart ailment. In pursuance of the inspection note again the petitioner’s licence of fair price shop was suspended by the order dated 16.1.2008 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) and thereafter, a charge-sheet dated 21.1.2007 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) was served to the petitioner. The charge-sheet basically contains four charges i.e., (i) the petitioner does not belong to same village; (ii) she was not present at the time of inspection; (iii) the documents of sale and stock register were not available and (iv) the petitioner had not deposited the document of sale in the month of November and December, 2007. In pursuance of the charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted reply and stated that on 31.12.2007, she had gone to avail medical aid at Yashoda Heart and Chest Centre, Moradabad. In pursuance of the charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted reply and stated that on 31.12.2007, she had gone to avail medical aid at Yashoda Heart and Chest Centre, Moradabad. Accordingly, on that day, the fair price shop was not opened. It was further stated by the petitioner that she had distributed the kerosene oil to the cardholders and the total number of cardholders were 445. However, in reply of the petitioner had inadvertently mentioned the number as 517, though cardholders were 445 in number. The petitioner submitted medical certificate as well as the certificate issued by the Pradhan to establish that she was at Moradabad for medical treatment and she belongs to same village. The petitioner also stated that since in the month of November and December, 2007 she was not running the shop on account of suspension/cancellation of licence by the respondents, it was not necessary for her to submit the register to the authorities. It was also stated that since the petitioner’s licence of fair price shop was cancelled, the quota was lifted by one Bhanumati and only after allowing of appeal by the order dated 27.12.2007 (supra), she was entitled to run the fair price shop and she lifted commodities on 30.12.2007. 4. Without considering the reply of the petitioner the licence was cancelled by the impugned order dated 21.4.2008. While cancelling licence the SDM had travelled beyond the allegations contained in the charge-sheet (Annexure 3 to the writ petition). The other ground relied upon by the SDM was that the signature of the doctor does not resemble with the prescription. The other ground is that the petitioner has not distributed the sugar to card holders as required in quantity and she has not distributed sugars and food grains to 517 card holders and only 445 card holders were distributed sugars and food grains. All the three grounds were not mentioned in the charge-sheet. While filing appeal, the petitioner stated before the appellate authority that there are only 445 card holders and not 517. The number of 517 card holders was inadvertently mentioned instead of 445 card holders as is evident from the impugned order itself. The petitioner further stated that the grounds relied for cancellation of licence were not mentioned in the charge-sheet. Hence the SDM had violated principles of natural justice. The number of 517 card holders was inadvertently mentioned instead of 445 card holders as is evident from the impugned order itself. The petitioner further stated that the grounds relied for cancellation of licence were not mentioned in the charge-sheet. Hence the SDM had violated principles of natural justice. It was also stated by the petitioner that the licensing as well as the appellate authority had acted under political pressure. The newly appointed licensee (opposite party No. 5) is the daughter of opposite party No. 4, who is the Cabinet Minister. However, the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition has been preferred. 5. While preferring the writ petition in para 7 of the writ petition it has been categorically pleaded by the petitioner that the petitioner’s fair price shop licence has been cancelled because, the opposite party No. 4 who is the Minister in the Cabinet of the State Government wanted that the licence of the fair price shop be given to his daughter Smt. Shahin who has been arrayed as respondent No. 5 in the present writ petition. Admittedly, after cancellation of the licence, it has been allotted to the respondent No. 5. The relationship has not been denied while filing counter affidavit by the respondents. 6. A plain reading of the impugned order indicates that it has been passed on different grounds other than what was enumerated in the charge-sheet dated 21.1.2008. While submitting reply the petitioner seems to have reasonably explained the allegations with regard to charges contained in charge-sheet. It appears that the SDM without considering the reply of the petitioner has passed the impugned order and travelled beyond the allegations contained in the charge-sheet. At the face of record, it is evident that the petitioner has been denied the opportunity to make submission on the allegations relied upon by the SDM while passing the impugned order of cancellation of licence. The appellate authority has also not considered the fact that there are only 445 card holders in the village entitled for kerosene oil. Moreover, it was incumbent on the appellate authority to consider the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal with regard to submissions made by the petitioner that the SDM has travelled beyond the allegations contained in the charge-sheet dated 21.1.2008 but it has been not done. 7. Moreover, it was incumbent on the appellate authority to consider the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal with regard to submissions made by the petitioner that the SDM has travelled beyond the allegations contained in the charge-sheet dated 21.1.2008 but it has been not done. 7. Apart from the above, there is material evidence making out a case of strong mala fide. The order of suspension of licence of the petitioner in first round was set aside by the appellate authority by the judgment and order dated 27.12.2007. Only immediately after two days on 31.12.2007, a surprise inspection was done that too, when the petitioner had gone to medical treatment because of her heart ailment, to the Nursing Home at Moradabad. The order of cancellation of licence on the ground not covered by the charge-sheet is another instance which is indicative of the fact that the SDM and the appellate authority have acted under political pressure to cancel the licence of the petitioner with intent to allot the shop to O.P. No. 5. Under these facts and circumstances, it is evident that petitioners licence was cancelled only to give undue favour to the respondent No. 5 who happens to be the daughter of a Cabinet Minister (respondent No. 4) of the State of U.P. 8. Any action taken with mala fide intention, shall amount to highly arbitrary and be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The cancellation of licence on the ground not mentioned in the charge-sheet, amounts to denial of opportunity to defend. It appears that the SDM could not find any justifiable ground to cancel the petitioner’s licence, hence he travelled beyond the grounds mentioned in the charge-sheet. Accordingly the petitioner has not been granted reasonable opportunity. 9. In the Government order dated 29.7.2004 and 23.4.2003, under the terms and conditions of licence, it has been provided that a fair price shop licence may be cancelled only with due compliance of principles of natural justice. Complaint relied upon by the authorities must be supported by an affidavit. At no stage during inquiry, the petitioner was given material relying upon which the licence of the petitioner has been cancelled. The reply of the petitioner to the notice as well as the ground taken in appeal have not been considered by the SDM and the appellate authority. 10. At no stage during inquiry, the petitioner was given material relying upon which the licence of the petitioner has been cancelled. The reply of the petitioner to the notice as well as the ground taken in appeal have not been considered by the SDM and the appellate authority. 10. It is a settled principle of law that right to carry on business and right to livelihood are the fundamental rights enshrined under Article 19 (1) (g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, while depriving a person of his fundamental rights, the authorities are expected to act in a just and fair manner. 11. The compliance of principles of natural justice and fair play is the part and partial of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Every arbitrary action or order may be subjected to judicial review. A person cannot be denied the source of livelihood without giving reasonable opportunity to defend vide, Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another, AIR 1978 SC 597 and Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101 . 12. In the case reported in 2007 (1) SLJ 407 (DB), Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, it has been observed that before suspending or cancelling a fair price shop licence, a preliminary inquiry should be held and while holding preliminary inquiry the inquiry officer as far as possible, should give notice and also endeavour to collect evidence against the persons to whom licence has been issued. The Government order further provides that while passing the order of suspension the authority has to record categorical finding by speaking order in respect of the specific charges which are prima facie found against a licensee on the basis of the preliminary inquiry. 13. Another Division Bench in the case of Harpal v. State of U.P. and another, 2008(3) ADJ 36 (DB) has observed that alternative remedy of appeal shall not be a bar in case licence is cancelled in utter disregard of principles of natural justice. The Division Bench further observed that merely on oral complaint an inquiry should not be held without any material on record. It has further been held that vague allegation without indicating expressive instance on the basis of record and material the order of suspension or cancellation of licence shall be bad in law. The Division Bench further observed that merely on oral complaint an inquiry should not be held without any material on record. It has further been held that vague allegation without indicating expressive instance on the basis of record and material the order of suspension or cancellation of licence shall be bad in law. In Siyaram v. State of U.P. and others, 2009(2) ADJ 174 and Dori Lal v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (1) ALJ 430 it has been held that by grant of licence valuable right accrue in favour of licensee and such right cannot be taken away except in accordance with law after giving opportunity to licensee to show cause. 14. In the case reported in AIR 1970 SC 1302 , M/s. Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that opportunity to party interested in the dispute to present his case on question of law as well as fact, ascertainment of facts from materials, before the authority is necessary. The authority or Tribunal has to disclose the material to the party against whom it intends to use them. The relevant portion from the judgment of M/s. Mahabir Prasad (supra) is reproduced as under : “7. Opportunity to party interested in the dispute to present his case on question of law as well as fact, ascertainment of facts from materials before the Tribunal after disclosing the materials to the party against whom it is intended to use them, and adjudication by a reasoned judgment upon a finding of the facts in controversy and application of the law to the facts found, are attributes of even a quasi-judicial determination. It must appear not merely that the authority entrusted with quasi-judicial authority has reached a conclusion on the problem before him: it must appear that he has reached a conclusion which is according to law and just, and for ensuring that end he must record the ultimate mental process leading from the dispute to its solution. Satisfactory decision of a disputed claim may be reached only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons in support of a decision on a disputed claim by a quasi-judicial authority ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on grounds of policy or expediency. Satisfactory decision of a disputed claim may be reached only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons in support of a decision on a disputed claim by a quasi-judicial authority ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on grounds of policy or expediency. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the authority has rejected his claim. If the order is subject to appeal, the necessity to record reasons is greater, for without recorded reasons the appellate authority has no material on which it may determine whether the facts were property ascertained, the relevant law was correctly applied and the decision was just.” 15. In the present case, undoubtedly, the competent authority has travelled beyond the allegations contained in the charge-sheet on account of which the petitioner could not defend her cause. It is apparent that the impugned order of cancellation of licence suffers from bias because of pressure extended by the Cabinet Minister in favour of his daughter. 16. As per Government Legal Glossary the word ‘bias’ means : "a one sided inclination of mind, any special influence that sways the mind”. As per Law Lexicon by P. Ram Nath Aiyer the word ‘bias’ means : “leaning of mind: prepossession: inclination: propensity towards an object, bent of mind a mental power, which sways the judgment: that which sways the mind toward one opinion rather than another; as, bias of arbitrator, of judge, or jury or witness”. 17. In the case of Secretary to Government, Transport Department v. Munuswamy Mudaliar, 1988 Supp. SCC 651, the Hon’ble Apex Court has defined the word ‘bias’ “as predisposition to decide for or against one party without proper regard to the true merits of the dispute”. Going through the meaning of bias mentioned above, it is borne out that the bias means inclination or leaning of mind of Judge or Inquiry Officer in favour or against any person which sways his mind to form an opinion on the point in issue before him. 18. In the case of Ratan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co-education) Higher Secondary School and others, (1993) 4 SCC 10 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has classified three kinds of bias namely, (i) personal bias (ii) pecuniary bias and (iii) official bias. 18. In the case of Ratan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co-education) Higher Secondary School and others, (1993) 4 SCC 10 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has classified three kinds of bias namely, (i) personal bias (ii) pecuniary bias and (iii) official bias. The present case relates to the personal bias as well as official bias because of political pressure. 19. In case of Ratan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in case the inquiry is challenged on the ground of bias and malafides, the petitioner is required to establish the real likelihood of bias not the likelihood of bias. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case has considered a number of its earlier judgments on the points in issue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has relied on R. v. Sussex Justices, 1924 (1) KB. 256, wherein it has been held that “answer to the question whether there was a real likelihood of bias depends not upon what actually was done but upon what might appear to be done”. 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also relied on Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 2, para 551 in its judgment wherein it has been indicated that “the test of bias is whether a reasonable intelligent man, fully apprised of all the circumstances would feel a serious apprehension of bias”. 21. The same principle had been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand, 1957 SCR 575 , in which it has been held that “the test is not whether in fact, a bias has affected the judgment; the test always is and must be whether a litigant could reasonably apprehend that a bias attributable to a member of the tribunal might have operated against him in the final decision of the tribunal. It is in this sense that it is often said that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done”. 22. In the case of Cantonment Executive Officer and others v. Vijay Deewani and others, (2008) 12 SCC 203, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “question of bias is always question of fact. It is in this sense that it is often said that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done”. 22. In the case of Cantonment Executive Officer and others v. Vijay Deewani and others, (2008) 12 SCC 203, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “question of bias is always question of fact. The Court has to be vigilant while applying the principle of bias as it primarily depends upon the facts of each case, the Court should only act on the real bias and not merely likelihood of bias.” 23. In case of Union of India and others v. Prakash Kumar Tandon, (2009) 2 SCC 541 the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the raid against the respondent was conducted by the vigilance department and the Chief of the vigilance department was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Keeping in view of this fact Hon’ble Court held that the inquiry was not fair. The appointment of Chief of vigilance department as Inquiry Officer should have been avoided. The Tribunal as well as High Court held the inquiry to be vitiated. The Hon’ble Apex Court confirmed the judgment of the High Court. In view of above, it is settled that the Inquiry Officer should be fair and impartial. It is not necessary that he would have been witness in the inquiry or he would have in any way interested in the subject matter of the inquiry. If the Inquiry Officer has prejudices against the employee, he cannot be said to be fair and impartial. The bias of Inquiry Officer may not relate to subject under inquiry. It may relate to different matter too which really causes apprehension that charged person will not get justice from him. 24. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna and others, (2001) 2 SCC 330 , has examined the issue of bias and mala fide and observed as under : “Whereas fairness is synonymous with reasonableness—bias stands included within the attributes and broader purview of the word ‘malice’ which in common acceptation means and implies ‘spite’ or ‘ill will’. One redeeming feature in the matter of attributing bias or malice and is now well settled that mere general statements will not be sufficient for the purposes of indication of ill will. One redeeming feature in the matter of attributing bias or malice and is now well settled that mere general statements will not be sufficient for the purposes of indication of ill will. There must be cogent evidence available on record to come to the conclusion as to whether in fact, there was existing a bias or a mala fide move which results in the miscarriage of justice... In almost all legal inquiries, ‘intention as distinguished from motive is the all-important factor’ and in a common parlance a malicious act stands equated with an intentional act without just cause or excuse.” (Emphasis added) 25. Apart from the above, it appears that the authorities have acted maliciously to abuse the process of law in favour of the respondent No. 5. The State is under obligation to act fairly without ill will or malice—in facts or in law. “Legal malice” or “malice in law” means something done without lawful excuse. It is an act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. It is a deliberate act in disregard to the rights of others. Where malice is attributed to the State, it can never be a case of personal ill-will or spite on the part of the State. It is an act which is taken with an oblique or indirect object mala fide exercise of powers does not imply any moral turpitude. It means exercise of statutory power for “purposes foreign to those for which it is in law intended.” It means conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of another, a depraved inclination on the part of the authority to disregard the rights of others, which intent is manifested by its injurious acts. [Vide Jaichand Lal Sethia v. State of West Bengal and others, AIR 1967 SC 483 ; A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207 ; State of A.P. v. Goverdhanlal Pitti, AIR 2003 SC 1941 ]. 26. Passing an order for unauthorised purpose constitute malice in law. [Vide Punjab State Electricity Ltd. v. Nora Singh, (2005) 6 SCC 776 ; and Union of India v. V. Ramakrishnan, (2005) 8 SCC 394 ]. 27. 26. Passing an order for unauthorised purpose constitute malice in law. [Vide Punjab State Electricity Ltd. v. Nora Singh, (2005) 6 SCC 776 ; and Union of India v. V. Ramakrishnan, (2005) 8 SCC 394 ]. 27. From the facts and circumstances on record, it may be safely inferred that the authorities have acted with mala fide on fact and law both while depriving the petitioner from his licence to run fair price shop with intention to allot the same in favour of the respondent No. 5 who is daughter of the Cabinet Minister of the State Government. 28. In the constituent assembly debate with regard to bureaucracy in India, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had persuaded to prefer British system of bureaucracy, over and above the spoiled system existing in America at that time. Lord Denning had appreciated the work of members of Indian Civil Service because of their honesty, knowledge and highest degree of integrity. But it appears that in post independent India, the bureaucracy is gradually falling in standard with regard to honesty, independence and commitment to job expected from them and their action is influenced by political masters. 29. Prof. H.W.R. Wade in his famous treatise “Administrative Law” (fifth edition page 58-59) had observed that it is expected from the bureaucracy to possess high degree of detachment from the party politics and publicity. The learned author proceeded to observed as under : “The civil servant thus achieves a very high degree of self-effacement, and although he is bound to be much concerned with questions of policy as well as with administration, he is insulated from the effects of political controversy. Working in this atmosphere of detachment, he can give his services to a government of any complexion with impartiality—or at least with the greatest degree of impartiality that it is reasonable to ask of a human being.” 30. De Smith, Woolf and Jowell in their famous treatise, “Judicial Review of Administrative Action”, (fifth edition page 521) while defining the scope of the rule against bias and its content, observed that there are three requirement of public law to quote : “The first seeks accuracy in public decision-making and the second seeks the absence of prejudice or partiality on the part of the decision-maker. An accurate decision is more likely to be achieved by a decision-maker who is in fact impartial or disinterested in the outcome of the decision and who puts aside any personal prejudices. The third requirement is for public confidence in the decision-making process. Even though the decision-maker may in fact be scrupulously impartial, the appearance of bias can itself call into question the legitimacy of the decision-making process. In general, the rule against bias looks to the appearance or risk of bias rather than bias in fact, in order to ensure that “justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” 31. The economic order in a country more or less decides the social structure of a society. According to Karl Marx the mode of production in material life determines the general character of social, political and spiritual process of life. (Ref. History of Political Theory”, Fourth Edition, by George H. Sabine, Page 698). However, the mode, manner or means to achieve materialistic output should be fair, just and proper. It cannot be achieved unless the constitutional functionaries are not elected or appointed on merit without being influenced by caste, creed, religion or for extraneous considerations. Once, Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation, said to quote : “There are such a close connection between the means and the end that it is difficult to say which of the two is role important. Or we may say that the means is the body and the end is the soul. The end is invisible, the means is visible. Now we shall have the pleasure of demonstrating this great truth. (Extract from the Selection Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. IV p. 328)” 32. While deciding a case with regard to involvement of mining mafia in the Government contracts, I had referred the views of Mahatma Gandhi with regard to expected standard of constitutional functionaries which is quoted as under : “62.For a better means and better end, Mahatma Gandhi had suggested that the constitutional functionaries of the Government should be above the board. He had proceeded to say (supra), to quote : “Today you have worn on your head a crown of thorns. The seat of power is nasty thing. You have to remain ever wakeful on that seat. You have to be move non-violent, move humble and more-forbearing. He had proceeded to say (supra), to quote : “Today you have worn on your head a crown of thorns. The seat of power is nasty thing. You have to remain ever wakeful on that seat. You have to be move non-violent, move humble and more-forbearing. Minister may not make private gains either for themselves or for their relatives or friends. The leaders have the reins and the disposal of millions of rupees is in their hands. They have to be vigilant. They must be humble. People often think nothing of net keeping their words. They should never promise what they cannot do. Once a promise is made, it must be kept at all cost. (Selected Works of Mahatma Gandhi).” Again Mahatma Gandhi had proceeded to say (supra), to quote : “The legislative assemblies should be their only law-makers. Ministers were liable to be changes at will. Their acts should be subject to review by their Courts. They should do all in their power to make justice, cheap, expeditious and incorruptible...” The minister should be completely free from all the prejudices against any caste or creed and from any favouritism towards his old relatives and friends. This private life should be so simple that it inspires respect or even reverence. Bungalows and motor cars should be ruled out of course if he has to go far or on an urgent business, he should certainly use a car but its use should be definitely very limited. I see that the car may perhaps be quite necessary. The members of ministers’ family including children should do all the household works themselves, servants should be used as sparingly as possible. These rooms should be not furnished with expensive foreign made furniture, such as sofas, cupboards and chairs especially at present, when crores of his countrymen do not have a single cotton mattress to sit upon or even a piece of cloth to wear.” 33. Lord Denning had rightly said in his famous treatise, “The Discipline of Law” (page 61) to quote : “Our procedure for securing our personal freedom is efficient, but our procedure for preventing the abuse of power is not.” 34. However, in our country, the procedure to secure personal freedom as well as to prevent the abuse of power both, seems to be not upto the mark. 35. However, in our country, the procedure to secure personal freedom as well as to prevent the abuse of power both, seems to be not upto the mark. 35. Whenever there is conflict between individual right and others’ right, then the right which is based on justness and fairness must prevail. The constitutional functionaries like Ministers and others are always expected that they will adhere to their oath of office and serve the peoples giving primacy over the personal interest. It is not expected from the constitutional functionaries to abuse their power for their vested interest or to serve their own children, friends, relatives or associates, giving go-bye to rules and regulations. According to Geeta, the persons holding high offices are torch bearers and the society follows their leaders in day to day life. 36. The great Indian freedom fighter, philosopher, scholar and spiritual leader Sir Aurobindo long back taken note with regard to personal interest vis-a-vis social and national interest. The compilation of various lecturers/writings between 1915 to 1918 has been published under the title “The Human Cycle The Ideal of Human Unity War and Self-Determination”. To quote relevant passage from the said book (supra) : “The attempt always leads to an eternal struggle with other egoisms, a mutual wounding and hampering, even a mutual destruction in which if we are conquerors today, we are the conquered or the slain tomorrow; for we exhaust ourselves and corrupt ourselves in the dangerous attempt to live by the destruction and exploitation of others.” Learned author further proceeded to observe as under : “The society has no right to crush or efface the individual for its own better development or self-satisfaction; the individual, so long at least as he chooses to live in the world, has no right to disregard for the sake of his own solitary satisfaction and development his fellow-beings and to live at war with them or seek a selfishly isolated good.” According to Sir Aurobindo, the service of the State stand at highest pedestrial of morality. To quote : “The service of State and community is the only absolute rule of morality.” 37. Thus, the persons holding high offices in a country which includes constitutional functionaries like ministers cannot abuse their office for some unlawful purpose. Their action is always under constant public watch. To quote : “The service of State and community is the only absolute rule of morality.” 37. Thus, the persons holding high offices in a country which includes constitutional functionaries like ministers cannot abuse their office for some unlawful purpose. Their action is always under constant public watch. It is unfortunate that the minister of the State Government had influenced the district administration for the grant of permit in favour of his daughter depriving the petitioner from the source of livelihood. 38. In the present case, though the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had tried to defend action on the ground that there is no procedural illegality in cancelling the licence and relationship shall not invalidate the action but submission seems to be misconceived. On the facts and material on record, in the present case, there appears to be abuse of power for extraneous reasons. 39. According to Legal Maxims, “Acts Exteriora indicant interiors secrets” i.e., act indicate the intention, applicable in the present case with full vigour. In Broom’s Legal Maxims (Tenth Edition: Page 200) it has been discussed as under : “The law, in some cases, judges of a man’s previous intentions by his subsequent acts; and, on this principle, it was resolved in a well-known case, that if a man abuse an authority given him by the law, he becomes a trespasser ab initio.” 40. There appears to be no doubt that on account of being daughter of a Cabinet Minister (respondent No. 4), the petitioner was treated arbitrarily by abusing power with intention to grant licence to the respondent No. 5. Since there appears to be abuse of power at the behest of the Cabinet Minister causing mental pain and agony and financial loss to the petitioner, it is a fit case where exemplary costs should be awarded to the petitioner keeping in view the facts and circumstances and law laid down in the case reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344 , Salem Advocate Bar Association (II) v. Union of India. 41. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed with cost quantified to Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) which shall be deposited by the respondent No. 5 in this Court within two months from today. In case it is not deposited, it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The Registry to take follow-up action. 41. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed with cost quantified to Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) which shall be deposited by the respondent No. 5 in this Court within two months from today. In case it is not deposited, it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The Registry to take follow-up action. Out of Rs.1,00,000/-, the petitioner shall be allowed to withdraw Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand only) and Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand) shall be remitted to the Mediation Centre at Allahabad. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned orders dated 21.4.2008 (Annexure-7) and 15.2.2008 (Annexure 5) with consequential benefits. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties 1 to 3 to restore the fair price shop licence in favour of the petitioner forthwith and appropriate order may be passed for the purpose within one month from today. The Registry as well as learned Standing Counsel may communicate immediately. It shall be open for the petitioner to file a suit for damages for her suffering on account of high-handedness on the part of the respondents. Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. ————