JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned State counsel, appearing for all the respondents. 2. The petitioner was issued with a licence for selling stamps under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Rules framed thereunder. Such licence was granted on 06.12.2005. The respondent No.4, i.e. the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hailakandi had submitted an Ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge, Hailakandi Police Station on 04.04.2013 alleging that scanned copies of Sale Deeds bearing registration Nos.194 to 202 appeared to be doubtful and might be fake. On the basis of the said Ejahar, Hailakandi Police Station Case No.115/2013 was registered under Sections 258/420 IPC. 3. The petitioner and 4(four) others were arrested in connection with the aforesaid Police Station case and as they were in police custody, licences of the petitioner along with 4(four) others, who were so arrested, were cancelled by an order dated 07.05.2013. 4. By filing this application under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 07.05.2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Laskar that the impugned order of cancellation was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner merely because of the fact that he was arrested in a police case. It is also submitted by him that the petitioner could not approach this Court earlier because of financial constraints as his means of livelihood was taken away by the impugned order. It is also contended that one Bilal Uddin Barbhuiya, whose licence was cancelled along with the petitioner, had approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No.5883/2013 and this Court, by an order dated 18.11.2013, had set aside the said order dated 07.5.2013 so far as it related to the petitioner as being violative of principles of natural justice. The other 3(three) persons, whose licences were cancelled along with the petitioner, had also approached this Court in WP(C) No. 3941/2013 and by following the order dated 18.11.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 5883/2013, the said writ petition was also allowed. Accordingly, Mr. Laskar prays for a similar order. 6. No affidavit has been filed by the State respondents in the instant case. It is not disputed by Mr. Accordingly, Mr. Laskar prays for a similar order. 6. No affidavit has been filed by the State respondents in the instant case. It is not disputed by Mr. Chutia that the cancellation of licences in respect of 4(four) other persons, whose licences were cancelled along with the petitioner had been interfered with by this Court on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the orders passed by this Court, which are available at Annexure-D and Annexure-E of the writ petition, I am of the opinion that this case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 07.05.2013 is set aside and quashed. 8. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.