JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner is a duly licensed fair price dealer. Pursuant to an inspection report, the Licensing Authority, Sub-Divisional Officer, Sasaram cancelled the petitioners licence being Licence No. 1 of 1995, after due show cause notice to the petitioner. Petitioner, in spite of repeated reminders, did not appear before the Sub- Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer, considering the materials on record, passed the order. Petitioner filed his statutory appeal before the Collector. It was, inter alia, prayed before the Collector that the matter may be remanded to the Sub- Divisional Officer for fresh consideration after granting opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case. Collector apparently did not accede to the request and dismiss the appeal by order dated 28.11.2008, as contained in Annexure-5, being Supply Appeal Case No. 10 of 2007. It is these orders that are under challenge. 2. Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel in support of the writ petitioner submits that a perusal of the appellate order would show that even though the order is in three pages, in effect, it is a non-speaking order. He submits that the order merely notices the allegations. It does not even refer to findings as arrived by the Original Authority. It does not care to deal with the defence and submissions of the petitioner, the appellant before the Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram. 3. Having heard the parties and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. 4. In my view, the writ petition must succeed. The appellate order of the Collector cannot be sustained. It is now well established that a quasi-judicial order has to be a speaking order. The appellate proceedings-are guasi-judicial proceedings and thus the appellate Court/authority is obliged to pass speaking order. Speaking order is an order which speaks for itself. It takes into account the stand of both the sides. The facts found and reasons for arriving at the conclusion, all these elements together constitute a speaking order. Here, if we refer to the order made, it does not even in a single line refer to what the petitioner, the appellant before the Collector had to say about the allegations as being made against him. It does not say why the State version is being accepted. Here, if we refer to the order made, it does not even in a single line refer to what the petitioner, the appellant before the Collector had to say about the allegations as being made against him. It does not say why the State version is being accepted. Merely because State authorities make certain allegations does not mean that it is the gospel truth, because if that were so then on mere allegations made by the State officials, actions should automatically follow without show cause or hearing or without passing any order thereafter. In a quasi-judicial proceeding, all these aspects have to be kept in mind and a decision taken dispassionately and objectively. It is, only when this is done then order can be said complying with the basic principles of natural justice that is passing of reasoned order/speaking order that is wholly missing in the present. 5. Thus, the order cannot be sustained. It is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Collector to decide the matter afresh, which decision shall be taken within, three months from today. 6. The writ petition is, thus, allowed.