JUDGMENT : S. N. Satyanarayana, J. The petitioner herein is impugning the order dated 15.7.2017 passed in proceedings bearing No.SSLR- 13011/37/2016-PMU-SSLR by the 1st respondent in this proceedings. 2. Brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under: Petitioner herein is a Licensed Surveyor which was initially issued to him on 1.10.2008 and the same was being renewed from time to time. It is stated that the petitioner has secured said licence after undergoing training for four months and also passing the examination conducted by the Survey Settlement Training Institute of Karnataka. Thereafter, he has secured the licence for working as Surveyor and his area of operation was within Devanahalli Taluk. It is also stated that he has been entrusted work of survey by the Tahsildar of Devanahalli Taluk from time to time. According to the petitioner, he has been working honestly and he is a man of highest order of integrity. However, the records would speak otherwise. 3. The records would indicate that on 14.3.2016 one Nagaraj filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- from him for preparing 11-E Sketch of the land bearing Sy.No.5/4 of Chikkachimanahalli village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. It is in this background, while the petitioner was receiving a sum of Rs.20,000/- he was trapped on 15.3.2016 in the office of the applicant Nagaraj. In this behalf, a show cause was issued to the petitioner by the 1st respondent on 4.7.2016, for which a reply was given by the petitioner on 25.7.2016. 4. Thereafter, the 1st respondent on appreciation of the material on record has passed the order impugned dated 15.7.2017 in canceling the licence issued to the petitioner bearing No.3392, authorizing him to work as Surveyor within the area of Devanahalli Taluk. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition contending that the 1st respondent has not looked in to the objections which were filed by him on 25.7.2016 and the survey was not conducted on 22.2.2016 for want of full address of the person in whose name the RTC was standing. It is also contended that as he was not having the telephone number of the applicant he could not contact him to complete the work entrusted to him resulting in there being delay in communicating with him and thereafter taking up the survey work. 5. It is also contended that as he was not having the telephone number of the applicant he could not contact him to complete the work entrusted to him resulting in there being delay in communicating with him and thereafter taking up the survey work. 5. However, when the complaint and order impugned are looked in to, it would give a different picture. It discloses that the petitioner, a licensed surveyor had gone to the office of the applicant - Nagaraj therefore clearly indicating that the grounds urged by him in stating that he was not aware of the telephone number of the applicant Nagaraj is incorrect. In fact, without knowing the telephone number and address of the applicant, he could not have gone to his office and could not have placed the demand. Even assuming for a moment that there was no demand from him, then what was the need for him to go to the office of the applicant, receive a sum of Rs.20,000/- and to get caught with the money at the relevant point of time. This clearly indicate that the grounds urged by him in support of his defence is an attempt to wriggle out of the situation in which he has put himself and in the present set of facts, showing any lenience to such kind of people is in other words encouraging corruption in the society which has reached its pinnacle. 6. Therefore, by accepting the lame grounds which are raised viz., principles of natural justice is not considered and opportunity was not given are not causes at all when he is caught red-handed and the 1st respondent has rightly canceled his licence. Hence, question of interfering with the said order is nothing but encouraging the corrupt practices of Officers like petitioner and demoralizing the Officers like 1st respondent who has taken stringent action against the corrupt persons. In that view of the matter, this Court find that question of interfering with the order impugned does not arise. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.