Judgment 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. Both the Writ Petitions are based on similar facts and involve common question of law as such are decided together. 3. The petitioners in both these petitions were issued licences for running LoknatyaKala Kendras. The same were issued by the Additional Collector, Latur under Rule 92 of the Rules for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusement (Other than Cinemas) and Performances for Public Amusement Including Mela, Tamashas, 1960. The said licences of the petitioners are in force till 2015 as contended by the petitioners. 4. It appears that show cause notices were issued to the petitioners seeking explanation from them as to why their licences should not be cancelled. The said notices are received by the petitioners on 17.08.2012. On 21.08.2012, the petitioners sought time to file their say. On same day i.e. on 21.08.2012, respondent no. 3 Thasildar Taluqa Executive Magistrate passed an order cancelling he licences of the petitioners. The said order is assailed in the present Writ Petitions. 5. The submissions made by Mr. N.P.Patil, Jamalpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, can be culled out as under – (A) The District Magistrate Collector is the licensing authority. Under the Rules, respondent no. 3 does not have any authority or jurisdiction to pass any order to cancell the licences of the petitioners. (B) Respondent no. 3 was acting under dictation of respondent no. 2. Respondent no.2 directed respondent no. 3 to cancell the licences of the petitioners. Pursuant to the said directions, respondent no. 3 cancelled the said licences. Issuance of show cause notices was only a show made by respondent no. 3. As respondent no.3 was acting under dictation of respondent no. 2 such an order passed pursuant to such directions cannot be sustained. Learned counsel to buttress his submissions placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 . (C) The incident for which such step has been taken by respondents was trifle which was reported by the petitioners themselves. According to the learned counsel, for such trifle event, such harsh action could not have been resorted to by the respondents. 6. Gordhandas Bhanji, reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 . (C) The incident for which such step has been taken by respondents was trifle which was reported by the petitioners themselves. According to the learned counsel, for such trifle event, such harsh action could not have been resorted to by the respondents. 6. The learned AGP supports the order and submits that even Taluqa Executive Magistrate is a licensing authority and he has necessary powers, which he has exercised. The principles of natural justice are followed. Show cause notices were issued to the petitioners. No fault can be found with the orders. For the purpose of maintenance of public peace and order, licences have been cancelled, which action is legal and proper. 7. Before adverting to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it would be proper to refer to the relevant rules, namely: CHAPTER XVI LICENSING AUTHORITIES 192. Licensing Authority for Premises Licences: The licensing Authority for the purposes of Chapter VIII of these Rules shall be – (1) at the district headquarters, the District Magistrate. (2) at all other places, the District Magistrate, or the Mamlatdar or the Mahalkari, as the case may be within his jurisdiction. 193. Licensing Authority for Performance Licence: The Licensing Authority for the purposes of Chapter IX of these Rules, shall be – (1) at the district headquarters, the District Magistrate. (2) at all other places, the District Magistrate, or the Mamlatdar or the Mahalkari, as the case may be within his jurisdiction. 194 Licensing Authority for sale of tickets:-The Licensing Authority for the purposes of Chapter XV of these Rules, shall be:- (1) at the district headquarters, the District Magistrate; (2) at all other places, the District Magistrate, or the Mamlatdar or the Mahalkari, as the case may be within, his jurisdiction. CHAPTER XIX SUSPENSION AND CENCLLATION OF LICENCES 222. Powers to suspend or cancel Licences:-(1) The Licensing Authority may suspend or cancel any licence granted under these rules for contravention of any of these rules provided that the Licensing Authority shall give the licensee and opportunity to show cause before taking any action under this sub-rule. CHAPTER XIX SUSPENSION AND CENCLLATION OF LICENCES 222. Powers to suspend or cancel Licences:-(1) The Licensing Authority may suspend or cancel any licence granted under these rules for contravention of any of these rules provided that the Licensing Authority shall give the licensee and opportunity to show cause before taking any action under this sub-rule. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-rule(1) the licence shall be liable to immediate suspension or cancellation by the Licensing Authority if in the opinion of the Licensing Authority, the appliances in the premises for protection against and for extinguishing the fire are inadequate or in any way insufficient or in unsatisfactory condition. (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-rules(1) and (2), the Licensing Authority may, in its absolute discretion at any time cancel or suspend any licence granted under these rules and may direct the licensee to close the premises either permanently or temporarily, or direct him to comply with the directions and instructions that he may issue in order to prevent any obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage to the residents or passers-by in the vicinity or for the maintenance of public safety and the prevention of disturbance in the premises and every licensee shall forthwith comply with any such directions or instructions given by the Licensing Authority and if the licensee fails to comply with such directions and instructions, his licence shall be liable to immediate suspension or cancellation. (4) Notwithstanding the provision of sub-rules (1) and (2) the Licensing Authority may cancel or suspend any licence granted under these rules and may direct the licensee to close the premises permanently or temporarily, if the licensee fails to carry out any reasonable directions given to him by the Licensing Authority on receipt of a complaint about inconvenience caused to the spectators. 8. From perusal of the licences, it is manifest that same have been issued under Rule 92 Chapter VIII of the said Rules. The petitioners LoknatyaKala Kendras, are situated i.e. village Ramegaon, the same is not at the district headquarters. In such cases, in view of Rule 192 of the Chapter XVI of the said Rules licensing authority may be District Magistrate or Mamaltdar or Mahalkari as the case may be within his jurisdiction. 9. The Tahsildar, who is a Mamaltdar, has exercised the powers. The said powers cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. In such cases, in view of Rule 192 of the Chapter XVI of the said Rules licensing authority may be District Magistrate or Mamaltdar or Mahalkari as the case may be within his jurisdiction. 9. The Tahsildar, who is a Mamaltdar, has exercised the powers. The said powers cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Though licences may have been issued by the Additional Collector, still under the Rules, Mamaltdar is also a licensing authority, in all places, apart from District headquarters. In view of that, it cannot be said that the Tahsildar did not have authority or jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings for suspension or cancellation of licence. 10. If chronology of the events are considered, it is manifest that initially the Collector has issued letter dated 16.07.2012 addressed to the Tahsildar, Latur, wherein he has directed the Tahsildar to immediately cancel the licences of the petitioner's LoknatyaKala Kendras. Pursuant to the letter dated 16.07.2012, issued by the Collector to the Tahsildar, it appears that the Tahsildar had issued show cause notices to petitioners. The petitioners received the show cause notices on 17.08.2012. On 21.08.2012, before reply could be given by the petitioners, the order is passed by the Tahsildar. 11. Rule 222 prescribes the procedure to be adopted before the licence is suspended or cancelled. Sub-rule (1) mandates opportunity to be given to the licensee to show cause before any adverse action is taken. The discretion vested with the Licensing authority as laid down in Rule 222 is not an ordinary or unregulated discretion. 12. It is firm rule of Administrative Law that discretionary power is to be exercised, and a decision made, by the very authority to whom discretion is entrusted by the Statute in question. When an authority exercises discretion vested in it by law under dictation from, or at the behest of, a Superior Authority, this would in law amount to non-exercise of its discretionary power by the authority itself, and, consequently such action or decision would be invalid. The Official in whom law confides the discretion, must function himself and exercise his powers according to his own judgment and wisdom in each case coming before him without any interference or dictation from any higher Officer. If concerned Official does not act himself in the matter then he abdicates is responsibility and it would tantamount to non-exercise of discretion altogether. 13. If concerned Official does not act himself in the matter then he abdicates is responsibility and it would tantamount to non-exercise of discretion altogether. 13. On perusal of the order it would be explicitly clear that the said order is passed by the Tahsildar on dictation of the Collector, who is a superior authority. The order state that licences of petitioners to run Loknatya Kala Kendras are cancelled as per the order of the Collector vide letter under reference. The Tahsildar has not applied his independent mind to the facts and events. 14. When explanation was sought vide the show cause notices, adequate time was required to be given for submission of the explanation. On 21.08.2012, when the petitioners approached respondent no. 3 seeking some time to file reply, on that day itself the impugned orders came to be passed. The impugned orders are punitive in nature, the consequences of which amounts to taking away the source of livelihood of the petitioners. In fact in the present matter the principles of natural justice are rendered illusory. 15. It is manifestly clear from the aforesaid chronology of facts that respondent no. 3 has failed to apply his mind and has not passed the order after being satisfied about the grounds enumerated in Rule 222 of the said Rules for invoking his jurisdiction. 16. In the light of above, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. 17. The petitions are allowed. Rule is accordingly made absolute. However, with no order as to costs. 18. Present judgment would not be an impediment for the authorities to take any action in accordance with provisions of law and rules.