M.K Mukherjee, C.J:— The petitioner is carrying on business as a retail dealer in kerosene oil under a licence which is valid up to December 31, 1992. Alleging some irregularities in his shop the licensing authority has cancelled the licence. Aggrieved thereby he has filed the present writ petition.
2. At the time of hearing of this petition a threshold question, as to its maintainability was raised on the ground that the impugned order was an appealable one and, therefore, before approaching this Court the petitioner should have approached the appellate authority. Though there is much substance in the above contention, we do not feel inclined to reject this petition on the ground of alternative remedy having regard to the fact that the petition has been entertained and an interim order passed.
3. Coming now to the merits of the case, we find that the petitioner has averred in his writ petition that before the licence was cancelled he was not given any opportunity of being heard. No counter-affidavit has, however, been filed on behalf of the State to controvert the above contention of the petitioner in spite of opportunity having been given to file the same.
4. Para 11 of the U.P Kerosene Control Order, 1962, under which licence was granted to petitioner, expressly provides that before a licence is cancelled, the licensee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of submitting his explanation. As uncontroverted materials unmistakably show that no such opportunity was given, we find no hesitation in allowing this writ petition and setting aside the impugned order of cancellation.
5. Before we part with this judgment, we place on record that this order will not stand in the way of the licensing authority to proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law.
6. Petition allowed.