ORDER : The Tahasildar, Hangal made a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Haveri alleging that the petitioner society has committed an irregularity in distribution of food articles. After issuance of notice, the Deputy Commissioner, Haveri cancelled the license issued to the petitioner. Before passing the order, notice was issued and both the parties have been heard and it was the case of the Tahasildar that petitioner has committed great irregularities. 2. Against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Food and Civil Supplies and the Commissioner by its order dated 03.09.2007 confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. The grounds urged by the petitioner’s counsel are that the orders passed by the authorities are not speaking orders. In support of the allegations none have been examined and infact the complainant himself has appeared before the authority and stated that he has not made such complaint. In this circumstance, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no basis for the authorities to cancel the license of the petitioner and further it is submitted that since from the date of cancellation, he had the benefit of interim order and he was functioning the Fair Price Depot by carrying business for more than ten years. Under these circumstances, he has not committed any irregularities in carrying on the said business. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner be permitted to continue to carry out business. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this Court granted interim order in the year 2007 and it is for the benefit of petitioner and as such till today the licence was continued for about 10 years and the license was renewed up to end of this year and the petitioner has been authorized to carry on the business. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers. 6. I found that there is no inconsistency in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner of Food and Civil Supplies. The allegations made against the petitioner are proved and it cannot be expected from the authorities i.e., the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner of Food and Civil Supplies to pass orders like the judgment and decree. 6. I found that there is no inconsistency in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner of Food and Civil Supplies. The allegations made against the petitioner are proved and it cannot be expected from the authorities i.e., the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner of Food and Civil Supplies to pass orders like the judgment and decree. These are all the statutory orders, which has to be passed strictly based on the statutory provisions. Under this circumstance, the speaking order etc., as it is required from the Court, the same may not be expected from these authorities. The orders have been passed and there is no inconsistencies in the said orders. Hence, the petition is to be rejected. 7. However, it is seen that since from the date of interim order, the petitioner is continued in Fair Price Shop. Under these circumstances, instead of cancellation of licence the petitioner is authorized to carry out the business till end of this year. Thereafter the authorization given to the petitioner stands cancelled and it is for the authorities to pass an appropriate order thereafter. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed off.