ORDER : H.T. Narendra Prasad, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.12.2013 passed by respondent No. 1 in case No. DRM/C-5/YMC-PR/2468/2013-14 vide Annexure-A whereby the respondent No. 1 has cancelled the Pawn Broker's licence issued to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the proprietor of Bhavani Pawn-Brokers as per the licence granted under the provisions of Karnataka Pawnbrokers Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). From 1991-92 till date, the petitioner is running the brokerage business in Mysore. This being the case, the respondent No. 2, who is being a journalist has lodged complaint before the competent authority against the petitioner alleging that he has violated the provisions of Karnataka Pawnbroker Act, 1961. Based on the complaint, respondent No. 1 has issued the show-cause notice under the provisions of the Act to the petitioner on 20.8.2013 vide Annexure-C. Pursuant to the notice, the petitioner has given a detailed reply dated 29.10.2013 vide Annexure-E. After considering the reply given by the petitioner, by exercising the power under Section 4-B of the Act, respondent No. 1 has cancelled the licence granted to the petitioner by impugned order dated 31.12.2013 vide Annexure-A. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Sri. Venkatesh R. Bhagat, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 4-B of the Act, only power for respondent No. 1 is to forfeit the security deposit and he has no power to cancel the licence. He has further contended that the impugned order is passed without application of mind and respondent No. 1 has not considered the reply given by the petitioner. Therefore, he sought for allowing the writ petition. 4. Per contra, the learned AGA appearing for respondent No. 1 submits that since the petitioner has vitiated the provisions of the said Act and the Rules, the authority by exercising the power has cancelled the licence issued to the petitioner. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. On complaint being lodged by respondent No. 2on 10.10.2012, the respondent No. 1 has issued show-cause notice on 20.8.2013 to the petitioner as per the provisions of the Act. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. On complaint being lodged by respondent No. 2on 10.10.2012, the respondent No. 1 has issued show-cause notice on 20.8.2013 to the petitioner as per the provisions of the Act. Pursuant to the notice, the petitioner has given reply dated 29.10.2013 vide Annexure-E. Respondent No. 1 by exercising power under Section 4-B of the Act has passed the impugned order dated 31.12.2013 and cancelled the licence of the petitioner. Section 4-B of the Act reads as under: "4B. Forfeiture of security.- 1) The licensing authority may, at any time, by order in writing, forfeit to the Government the whole or any portion of the security deposit paid or deemed to have been paid under sub-section (2) of section 4-A, if the licensee,- (a) carries on the business of money lending in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made there under or the conditions of licence; or (b) is convicted of an offence under subsection (3) of section 9, section 15, section 16 or section 16-A or section 18; or (c) maintains false accounts. (2) Before forfeiting to the Government the whole or any portion of the security deposit under sub-section (1), the licensing authority shall give the licensee a notice in writing stating the grounds for which it is proposed to take action and requiring him to show cause against it within such time as may be specified in the notice. (3) Every order of the licensing authority under this section shall be communicated to the licensee in such manner as may be prescribed. (4) Every person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (1) may, within a period of one month from the date on which the order was communicated to him, prefer an appeal to the prescribed authority whose decision shall be final. (5) The licensing authority may, out of the amount forfeited, direct payment of such amount and at such rates as may be prescribed to the borrowers affected by the acts of the licensee." 7. Section 4-B of the Act is very clear that only power of the authority is to forfeit the security deposit. It has no power to cancel the licence issued under the Karnataka Pawn Brokers Act. Section 4-B of the Act is very clear that only power of the authority is to forfeit the security deposit. It has no power to cancel the licence issued under the Karnataka Pawn Brokers Act. Respondent No. 1 without application of mind and without giving any appropriate reasons and contrary to the provisions of the Act, has passed the impugned order. The same is unsustainable. Hence, the following order is passed: (a) Writ petition is allowed. (b) The impugned order dated 31.12.2013 passed by the respondent No. 1 vide Annexure-A, is set aside. (c) The matter is remitted back to respondent No. 1 to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order after giving opportunity to the petitioner.