JUDGMENT : ANJANA MISHRA, J. The present writ application seeks to assail the order, dated 23.02.2016, by which the Excise Commissioner of Bihar, under instructions from the Principal Secretary Excise Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, has issued a direction to the Collector, Gopalganj, to seal the petitioner’s distillery and has further directed that an explanation be sought from him as to why the license granted to him in Form 28-A and Form 25 be not cancelled. The writ petitioner has further prayed for quashing the consequential order, dated 23.02.2016, by which the distillery of the petitioner has been sealed. 2. The facts from which the present writ application emanates are detailed hereunder: (i) The petitioner had established a distillery in the district of Gopalganj and is holding license in Form 28-A and Form 25 under the Bihar Excise Act, 1915, for manufacturing rectified spirit and denatured spirits. Accordingly, it started commercial production in May, 2013. The license of the petitioner, having been extended from time to time, is valid up to 31.03.2016. (ii) The petitioner was issued and allotted 50,000 quintals of molasses from Vishnu Sugar Mill and 50,000 quintals from Bharat Sugar Mill and orders of the Controller of Molasses-cum- Excise Commissioner, Bihar, under the Bihar Molasses (Control) Act, 1947. The said allotment was made on 16.12.2015 and the lifting of Molasses was to be completed on or before 31.01.2016. (iii) The petitioner lifted the entire quantity allotted to him from Vishnu Sugar Mills, but the Molasses from Bharat Sugar Mills could not be lifted on account of the extremely poor conditions of the connecting roads from the Sugar factory to the distillery and, as such, vide his letter, dated 05.02.2016, requested the Controller of Molasses and Excise department of Bihar to extend the validity period of lifting up to 29.02.2016 so that they could lift the entire Molasses to continue their manufacture of denatured spirit and their distillery. (iv) However, ignoring the request of the petitioner, the Secretary to Commissioner, Excise, vide letter, dated 19.02.2016, asked the petitioner to show cause by 20.02.2016 as to why the molasses license, granted to his distillery, be not cancelled. It is submitted by the petitioner that at the same time, a direction was issued to the Collector, on 19.02.2016, to get the distillery inspected. The distillery was inspected by Superintendent of Excise, Gopalganj, along with OSD and Collector, Gopalganj. It is submitted by the petitioner that at the same time, a direction was issued to the Collector, on 19.02.2016, to get the distillery inspected. The distillery was inspected by Superintendent of Excise, Gopalganj, along with OSD and Collector, Gopalganj. The inspection having been made, the petitioner was directed to submit his show cause to the Superintendent of Excise within 24 hours on the allegation that 1583 BL liter of spirit out of 12,00,000 BL liters was found in excess in one storage tanker, which comes to 0.01% more than the booked balance. (v) On 22.02.2016, the petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notices explaining the actual situation. In so far as non-lifting of molasses is concerned, the petitioner enclosed the day to day chart of lifting as had been directed by the order, dated 16.05.2015, and also by subsequent order, dated 01.01.2016. The petitioner also explained the reasons for non-lifting of molasses from Bharat Sugar Mill, which was primarily on account of extremely poor conditions of existing roads from the sugar factory to the distillery. With regard to the charge of there being excess stock of spirit, the petitioner explained that when strong spirit is measured at 85F and above, its BL is above its true BL owing to its expansion by heat at the standard temperature and this accuracy could extend up to 0.5%. Thus, the difference of stock being only 0.01%., there can be no prosecution for the said reason. (vi) The Superintendent of Excise, Gopalganj, vide 22.02.2016, forwarded the explanation given by the petitioner to the Excise Headquarter, Government of Bihar, Patna; but on 23.02.2016, the explanation of the petitioner was arbitrarily rejected under the signature of Excise Commissioner, Government of Bihar, on the direction of the Principal Secretary of the Excise Department without assigning any reasons. Further the Collector, Gopalganj, was asked to seal the distillery and also call for an explanation from the licencee as to why his licenses be not cancelled. (vii) In pursuance of the aforementioned direction, the Collector proceeded to seal the said distillery of the petitioner and, hence, the petitioner was constrained to move this Court for appropriate expeditious relief. 3. Further the Collector, Gopalganj, was asked to seal the distillery and also call for an explanation from the licencee as to why his licenses be not cancelled. (vii) In pursuance of the aforementioned direction, the Collector proceeded to seal the said distillery of the petitioner and, hence, the petitioner was constrained to move this Court for appropriate expeditious relief. 3. It is submitted, on behalf of the petitioner, that the impugned orders, as contained in Annexures 8 and 9, are clearly illegal and arbitrary and the Principal Secretary has usurped the power of suspension/cancellation of license, which is under the statute bestowed on the Collector, he being the licensing authority. It is apparent from the perusal of the impugned order that the Collector, Gopalganj, has clearly abdicated the powers vested in him by the Statute and he was required to apply his own mind, being the statutory authority under the law. It is patent from the bare perusal of the order impugned herein that the Collector, Gopalganj, contrary to the well settled principle, abdicated his authority in favour of the Excise Commissioner, which is not permissible in law. 4. It is further urged by the counsel for the petitioner that instead of scrupulously following the provisions as contained in Section 42 of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915, the Collector, Gopalganj, without applying his mind, rejected the show cause filed by the petitioner. Evidently, the direction to the Collector, Gopalganj, to seek explanation from the license was nothing, but an exercise in futility inasmuch as the higher authority, having already rejected the explanation of the petitioner, there lay no scope for the Collector to act otherwise. 5. It is further contended by the petitioner that the impugned order clearly demonstrated the high handed and vindictive approach of the respondent No. 2, namely, the Principal Secretary and that the mala fide and abuse of power by him is writ large upon the face of the order itself. 6. It is, thus, contended by the petitioner that the rejection of explanation of the petitioner, with regard to the allegations of variation in quantity of spirit, is misconceived as the same was a result of aberration in the reading due to higher temperature during day time. 6. It is, thus, contended by the petitioner that the rejection of explanation of the petitioner, with regard to the allegations of variation in quantity of spirit, is misconceived as the same was a result of aberration in the reading due to higher temperature during day time. The authorities also failed to appreciate that the failure to lift the molasses was on account of genuine and bona fide reasons and on account of non-lifting of molasses, since no loss of revenue had occurred, the action taken against the petitioner was harsh and totally unwarranted. Furthermore, it is contended that for the latches on the part of the petitioner for not lifting molasses, the petitioner could have been subjected to a proceeding under the Bihar Molasses (Control) Act, 1947, alone, and not under the Bihar Excise Act, 1915. As such, the resultant action could have been taken under the Molasses Control Act; but instead thereof, the Excise authorities have proceeded to act under the Bihar Excise Act, 1915, which was totally uncalled for and unwarranted. 7. We have heard Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Lalit Kishore, learned Principal Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State. It was the contention of the petitioner that the authorities empowered under the Act have abdicated their duties in issuing the impugned order, which can best be tested by reference to the provisions as contained in Section 42 of the Bihar Excise Act, which reads as under:- “42. It was the contention of the petitioner that the authorities empowered under the Act have abdicated their duties in issuing the impugned order, which can best be tested by reference to the provisions as contained in Section 42 of the Bihar Excise Act, which reads as under:- “42. Power to cancel or suspend license, permit or pass - (1) Subject to such restrictions as the State Government may prescribe the authority who granted any license, permit or pass under this Act may cancel or suspend it – (a) if it is transferred or sublet by the holder thereof without the permissions of the said authority; or (b) if any duty or fee payable by the holder thereof be not duly paid; or (c) in the event of any breach by the holder thereof, or by any of his servants, or by anyone acting on his behalf with his express or implied permission of any of the terms or conditions thereof; or (d) if the holder thereof is convicted of any offence punishable to revenue under this Act or any other law for the time being in force relating to revenue, or of any cognizable and non-bailable offence, or of any offence punishable under the Dangerous Drug Act, 1930 (2 of 1930) or under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1889 (4 of 1889), or under other section which has been introduced into the Indian Penal Code by section 3 of that Act: or (e) if the holder thereof is punished for any offence referred to in clause (8) of section 167 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 (8 of 1878); or (f) where a license, permit or pass has been granted on the application of the holder of an exclusive privilege granted under section 22 – on the requisition in writing of such holder; or (g) if the conditions of the license, permit or pass provide for such cancellation or suspension at will. (2) When a license, permit or pass held by any person is cancelled under clause (a), clause (b), clause (c), clause (d) or clause (c) of the sub-section (1), the authority aforesaid may cancel any other license, permit or pass granted to such person by, or by the authority of the State Government under this Act, or under any other law for the time being in force relating to Excise, or under the Opium Act, 1878 (1 of 1878) [(3) When a license, permit or pass is liable to be cancelled, it may, at the discretion of the authority who granted the same, be suspended for a period of ninety days at a time, provided the authority concerned may extend the period of suspension beyond ninety days under exceptional circumstances, after recording reasons for the same.] (4) The holder of a license, permit or pass shall not be entitled to any compensation for its cancellation or suspension under this section, or to the refund of any fee paid or deposit made in respect thereof.” 8. It is submitted by the Principal Additional Advocate General that the impugned order was passed after due consideration of the action of the petitioner and is wholly justified. It appears from the record that the Secretary of Commissioner Excise, Government of Bihar, vide letter, dated 19.02.2016, issued a notice to petitioner calling upon him to explain the circumstances as to why the order issued to it for lifting molasses was not complied with by 31.01.2016 and for compliance of the said letter, a bare 24 hours period was accorded to the petitioner, which was duly answered by the petitioner vide letter, dated 22.02.2016 (Annexure – 6). In the said letter, the petitioner company had clearly explained that they had given the details of the amount of molasses loaded in tankers in a tabulated form. The petitioner has clearly stated the manner and the dates on which the molasses were lifted from Vishnu Sugar Mills, Gopalganj, and also from Sasamusa Sugar Mill, Gopalganj. It was also explained that there was shortage of tankers for lifting of molasses from Bharat Sugar Mill and despite their best and conscious efforts, they could not do so, more particularly, due to the poor condition of the existing road from Bharat Sugar Mill to their factory. It was also explained that there was shortage of tankers for lifting of molasses from Bharat Sugar Mill and despite their best and conscious efforts, they could not do so, more particularly, due to the poor condition of the existing road from Bharat Sugar Mill to their factory. It was stated that on account of expansion of S.H. 19 (Purani Mohammadpur More to our factory 16.6 Kms.) and construction of twenty (20) new bridges on the said route and diversions being created, which has loose soil and broken bricks, resulting in accidents on loaded tankers and, therefore, the petitioner could not lift the molasses from Bharat Sugar Mill. The petitioner also informed the aforementioned authority that they had already represented to the concerned authorities the Controller of Molasses, requesting extension of validity period for lifting of Molasses. 9. However, ignoring the representation filed by the petitioner, the Superintendent of Excise, Gopalganj, issued a letter to the Deputy Commissioner vide letter No. 107, whereby it communicated to him that under instructions of the Collector, Gopalganj, a surprise inspection had been conducted at the establishment of the petitioner along with one Senior Deputy Collector-cum-OSD to Collector, Gopalganj, on 19.02.2016, wherein it was found that there was a difference in the stock of spirit as the stock register did not tally with the actual verification of stocks. The explanation given by the petitioner was also forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Excise requesting him to give further guidance to proceed in the matter. It is in pursuance of this letter that the impugned order, dated 23.02.2016, contained in Memo No. 998 has been issued by the Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna, who, in turn, states that “as directed” which clearly shows that there was no independent exercise of mind by the respondent No. 3, namely, Excise Commissioner. 10. Furthermore, it is pertinent to observe here that Section 42 of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915, clearly enunciates that the power to cancel/suspend is clearly vested only in the Collector, who is the licensing authority, but he has failed to perform his statutory duties in the present context. It is evident from the cryptic order passed by the Commissioner that the distillery of the petitioner be sealed was devoid of any reason and suffered from want of consideration of the representation filed by the petitioner. It is evident from the cryptic order passed by the Commissioner that the distillery of the petitioner be sealed was devoid of any reason and suffered from want of consideration of the representation filed by the petitioner. The law, as it exist today, is clear inasmuch as the power to grant license is vested in the Collector of the district and, as such, it is only the authority aforesaid, who may proceed to take action against anyone found to have violated the provisions of the Act and not any other authority. 11. The impugned order, contained in Annexure 8, is, thus, clearly against the statutory provisions inasmuch as the direction to seal the distillery of the petitioner has been arbitrarily issued by the Excise Commissioner and, that too, at the behest of the superior authority, who has usurped the power of the Collector. The direction to the Collector to initiate a show cause notice to the petitioner was but an empty formality and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 12. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion and in the interest of justice, we set aside/quash the order, dated 23.02.2016, and consequent upon setting aside and quashing of the order aforementioned, it is hereby directed that the seal placed, on the factory premises of the petitioner, shall be removed forthwith and the petitioner shall be allowed to carry on its business and that no further disturbances shall be caused to the petitioner in conducting its business operation save and except in accordance with law. The writ application, thus, stands allowed. I.A. Ansari, J. – I Agree