Tapen Sen, J.
1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner prays for an Order commanding upon the Respondents to withdraw the Memo dated 14.12.2009 (as contained in Annexure P14) issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Food & Supplies-cum-Commissioner, Food, whereby and whereunder, the said authority, acting in the capacity of the Appellate Authority upheld the decision of the Director of Rationing cancelling the Licence of the Petitioner on 17.6.2009. The Petitioner has made a further prayer for a Declaration declaring that the enquiry, search and seizure conducted in his fair price Shop on 8.11.2008 by two Joint Directors of Rationing (F&S;) is a nullity and therefore, the Order of cancellation of the Licence of the Petitioner passed on 17.6.2009 should be set aside. The Petitioner has made a further prayer for an Order restraining the Respondents from declaring any vacancy of a fair price shop arising out of such illegal cancellation of the Licence of the Petitioner.
2. The short facts which are necessary to be taken note of are that the Petitioner claims to be a handicapped person who was granted a fair price shop Licence under the Ballygunge Sub Area, Kolkata being Fair Price Shop (FPS) No. 2988. It is the case of the Petitioner that on 7.11.2008 the Area Inspector (F&S;) Ballygunge Ration Office, visited his Shop after close of sale of rationed articles in the evening and took physical measurements of the stock-in-trade, verified the same with the Sale Register, Stock Register and Cash Memos and made a satisfactory endorsement on the Petitioner's Inspection Book on the same day. The Petitioner relies upon Annexure P2 in support of such a statement.
3. On the very next day i.e. on 8.11.2008 at about 5 P.M. while the Petitioner was running his Shop, two Joint Directors from the Directorate of Rationing namely Sri Biswanath Chakraborty (Joint Director, Kolkata North) and Sri Jayanta Chakraborty (Joint Director, Kolkata South) entered into his Shop and directed him to produce his Books of Accounts. The Petitioner produced all Books of Accounts including the daily Sale Register and Cash-Memo Books and, according to the Petitioner, Sri Biswanath Chakraborty became satisfied that there were no irregularities. However, the other Joint Director namely Sri Jayanta Chakraborty, made a note on the Inspection Book alleging that on demand, the Petitioner had failed to produce the Cash Memo Books.
4. The said Joint Director also made a note that the Stock-cum-Rate Board of the Petitioner's fair price shop was found blank during the course of enquiry and the Petitioner had not stocked rice, wheat, in separate stocks. Before leaving, the said Joint Director also seized almost of the Books of Accounts with instructions that the daily sale Register and Cash Memo Books upto 6.11.2008, be produced before him on the next working day i.e. on 10.11.2008. According to the Petitioners, a Seizure List was prepared but in the absence of any independent witnesses.
5. The Petitioner has further stated that although the inspecting team consisted of two Joint Directors, yet it was only the Joint Director, Kolkata South, who put his signature on both the Seizure List as well as on the Inspection Book and due to the difference of opinion, the Joint Director, Kolkata North, refused to put his signature on both the Seizure List as well as on the Inspection Book.
6. According to the Petitioner, he produced the Cash Memos used upto 9.11.2008 and the daily sale Register on the next working day i.e. on 10.11.2008 as 9.11.2008 was a Sunday. These were produced through his wife, Mrs. Madhu Agarwal, along with a detailed Representation dated 10.11.2008 in which serious objections were raised with regard to the search, seizure as well as the enquiry which, according to the Petitioner, was totally illegal.
7. In the said Representation, the Petitioner duly stated that out of two Joint Directors, one of them i.e. the Joint Director of Rationing (Kolkata North), was fully satisfied that there was no irregularity but it was the other Joint Director who, on difference of opinion, endorsed a dissatisfactory note. It is the further case of the Petitioner that just before the date of the alleged Inspection/enquiry, i.e. on 7.11.2008, the Area Inspector (F & S) Ballygunge, had taken physical measurements of the entire stock-in-trade of the Petitioner's fair price shop and had endorsed a satisfactory note on the Inspection Slip. It was further stated that however, during the course of enquiry on the next day, i.e. on 8.11.2008, physical measurement of the rationed articles were not even taken by the inspecting team and after 9 days from the date of the Inspection, the Director of Rationing, West Bengal passed an Order on 17.11.2008 suspending the Licence of the Petitioner till further Orders with a further direction that the Petitioner must show cause as to why his Licence itself be not cancelled. The said Show-cause Notice-cum-Suspension Order dated 17.11.2008 has been marked as Annexure P5.
8. According to the Petitioner, although the search was conducted on 8.11.2008, no copy of the Report was supplied to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has submitted that the Show Cause Notice itself will prove that the concerned Director had already come to the conclusion that the Petitioner had violated different provisions of the Control Order 2003 and therefore, any Reply to be submitted in answer thereto, was nothing but an empty formality. Various other grounds have been taken including that the Show Cause Notice refers to allegations with regard to sale of rationed articles to fictitious ration Card holders without identifying or naming such persons and therefore, such vague allegations are obviously to prejudice the case of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has stated that being aggrieved by the manner of conducting the enquiry as well as by the Order of suspension, he filed a Writ Petition before this Court being W.P. No. 28644 (W) of 2008 and by an Order dated 26.11.2008 an Order was passed by another Hon'ble Single Judge disposing of the Writ Petition by setting aside the Order dated 26.11.2008 with an observation that the Respondents may take steps against the Petitioner in accordance with law by providing all documents and papers including the Report as referred to in the Show Cause Notice. This Order has been brought on record vide Annexure P6.
9. Thereafter, on 11.12.2008, the Director of Rationing, West Bengal once again suspended the Petitioner's licence on the self-same allegations vide Annexure P6/1.
10. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the Petitioner again filed a 2nd Writ Petition being W.P. 1846 (W) of 2008 which appeared at 2 P.M. on 9.1.2009. On the same day, i.e. in the morning of 9.1.2009, a Memo dated 7.1.2009 (Memo No. 16/L&L; DR) was served upon the Petitioner informing him that his Licence had been cancelled. This Order, along with a Corrigendum dtd. 9.1.2009 has been marked as AnnexureP/7 to the Writ Petition.
11. It has been stated that the Order will go to show that the same was passed on the ground that the Petitioner had not submitted his reply to the second Show Cause Notice dated 11.12.2008 and had absented himself on the date of hearing on 7.1.2009 and therefore, the Director of Rationing came to the conclusion that the Petitioner was guilty of the provisions laid down in various paragraphs of the Control Order 2003, namely Paras 17,18 (II), 18(IV), 20(I) and 20(II).
12. The matter that was pending before the Division Bench with a connected Application, being APO No. 509 of 2008 and GA 4196 of 2008, were taken up by the said Division Bench on 9.1.2009. The Petitioner's Counsel produced the Order of Cancellation of the Licence dated 7.1.2009, and submitted that the Appeal had become infructuous and accordingly, the same was allowed to be withdrawn by Order dated 9.11.2009 giving liberty to the Petitioner to challenge the fresh cause of action in accordance with law and the points taken in the Appeal were kept open to be decided by the appropriate Court.
13. Thereafter the Petitioner challenged the Order of cancellation of the Licence dated 7.1.2009 through a 3rd Writ Petition being W.P. 36 of 2008. The same was taken up on 16.3.2009 and disposed of by another Hon'ble Single Judge vide Annexure P9 setting aside the Order dated 7.1.2009 with a direction to the Director of Rationing (W.B.) to take a fresh decision after giving a reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner and pass a reasoned Order but during the pendency, the Licence was deemed to remain under suspension.
14. Thereafter on 22.4.2009, the Joint Director of Rationing-cum-Officer-in-Charge, legal and licencing cell, Director of Rationing, Directed the Petitioner to appear before him on 19.5.2009. The Petitioner, accompanied by his lawyer, appeared but the Director did not allow his Advocate to participate in the hearing and asked him to go out of his Chamber.
15. Thereafter the Petitioner submitted a detailed and exhaustive written reply on 19.5.2009 itself denying all allegations and despite requests made by the Petitioner, the Director of Rationing refused to give any acknowledgement in this regard. Thereafter, the Petitioner was asked by an Official of the Food and Supplies Department to put his signature as proof of attendance and in good faith, he signed on a blank paper and thereafter, on 17.6.2009, the Director of Rationing, West Bengal passed the Order cancelling the licence of the Petitioner. This is Annexure P10 and it has now become the subject matter of challenge before this Court in this Writ Petition.
16. It however appears that the Petitioner had filed a statutory Appeal dated 6.7.2009 under Para 27 of the Control Order, 2003 and the same was received in the Office of the Appellate Authority, i.e. the Commissioner of Food-cum-Principal Secretary, Food & Supplies Department on 7.7.2009 vide Annexure P11. Since the Petitioner went on waiting for a considerable period of time and did not get any intimation with regard to the Appeal, he filed a 4th Writ Petition being W.P. 824 of 2009 which was disposed of on 21.8.2009 by this Court vide Anenxure P12 directing the State to dispose of the Appeal within a period of 4 months. While disposing of the said Appeal, this Court directed that the Appellate Authority to consider the reply to the Show Cause Notice that the Petitioner had filed earlier. Thereafter on 25.11.2009, the Petitioner was asked to appear before the Principal Secretary. He duly appeared along with his learned Advocate and submitted a short Notes of Arguments stating inter alia therein that he had been falsely implicated with vague allegations and the entire proceedings were vitiated for non-compliance of the statutory provisions.
17. However on 14.2.2009, Appellate Authority passed an Order vide Annexure P14 upholding the Order of termination dated 17.6.2009. This Order dated 14.2.2009 has also been challenged in this Writ Petition which is the 5th Writ Petition by the Petitioner.
18. An Affidavit-in-Opposition has been filed on behalf of the Respondents which has been duly sworn by the Respondent No. 8 (Rationing Officer, Ballygunge). Upto Para 3J, the facts have been stated sequentially. However in Para 3J-1, it has inter alia been stated that although the Petitioner appeared and participated in the hearing conducted on 19.5.2009, he did not offer any explanation nor did he adduce any evidence in defence and on the contrary, he admitted the charges framed against him and prayed for mercy expressing his regret and prayed for restoration of his licence. The Respondents have relied upon Annexure R1 in support of such a contention.
19. It has been stated in 3(k) onwards that on the basis of the records and documents available, it was held that the Writ Petitioner had contravened the provisions the West Bengal Urban Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003 and therefore, on 17.6.2009, the licence of the Petitioner was cancelled. They have submitted that there is nothing wrong with the Order and that the principles of natural justice were followed. It has further been stated that even the Appeal has now been disposed of confirming the Order of cancellation and therefore, the irregularities committed by the Petitioners stands proved on the basis of the records.
20. The principal contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is non-compliance of Para-25 (2) of the 2003 Control Order which lays down that the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to search and seizure shall, so far as may be, apply to search and seizure under this paragraph. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon on various judgments but he has also relied upon a short Order passed by me in W.P. 840 of 2009 wherein I had also taken the view that every search and seizure under the provisions of the 2003 Control Order should be within the parameters of the Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and since there was non-compliance thereof, the Order dated 12.8.2009 suspending the licence of the Petitioner in that case was quashed and the authorities were directed to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with law.
21. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on other judgments and other points also but before dealing with them, it would be relevant to notice that the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, while making his submissions, had also drawn my attention to the concluding portions of the impugned Order passed by the Appellate Authority at Page-132 to show that while passing the Order, the Principal Secretary totally misdirected himself by observing that the application of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not mandatory in nature in respect of administrative proceedings initiated under the 2003 Control Order and therefore, non-compliance of Section 100 did not vitiate the Proceedings. He has further submitted, with reference to Para-29 of the Writ Petition, that the Petitioner was tricked into signing on a blank sheet of paper, which is now being used against him as if, he had expressed his regret for the mistake committed by him and had prayed for mercy before the Director of Rationing.
22. So far as this particular aspect is concerned namely the aspect with regard to the Petitioner having put his signature on a blank sheet of paper or that the Petitioner having accepted his guilt or having expressed regret etc. is concerned, these are questions of fact and therefore, this Court refrains from making any observations in respect thereof.
23. However, so far as non-compliance of the provisions of Section 100 is concerned, this Court notices that under Para-25(2) of 2003 Order, it has been laid down that the provisions as contained in Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to search and seizure shall, so far as may be, apply to search and seizure under the said paragraph. Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, inter alia, provides that under Section 100(4), independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality should be called in the place which is searched and if no such inhabitant is available or is willing to be a witness, then an order in writing shall be issued to them to witness and attend the search.
24. In reply to the aforementioned contentions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. A.K. Deb relied upon internal Page 3 (running page 70 of the Writ Petition) of the Judgment delivered in the earlier Writ Petition being W.P. 21644 (W) of 2008 which was disposed of on 26.11.2008 and submitted that so far as the Inspection held on 8.11.2008 is concerned, the Joint Director of Rationing, Kolkata (North) had put his signature as a witness and therefore, if two Officers visited the shop having been authorised to carry out the Inspection and one of them put his signature on the Inspection Book, then that would be sufficient compliance for purposes of Section 100 Cr.P.C. He therefore submits that even if there was no independent witness, as required under Section 100 Cr.P.C., even then, the proceedings cannot be said to be vitiated. The observations of the earlier learned Single Judge passed in the aforementioned Writ Petition reads as follows:
Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents has produced in original the records maintained by the department. As regards the inspection held on 8th November 2008, there appears to be signature of the Joint Director Rationing, Kolkata (North) as a witness in the records of the department. In my opinion, if two officers visit a shop and one of them, who is otherwise authorised to carry out such inspection, puts his signature on the inspection book, that would be sufficient for the purpose proceeding with the enquiry unless of courses law stipulates that both the officers, or all the officers who conduct such inspection should sign on the inspection sheet. No statutory provision requiring such signature has been brought to my notice. The absence of the signature of both the Joint Directors thus in my opinion would not render the enquiry and the consequential steps vitiated.
(Quoted)
25. According to the learned Counsel, even assuming that there was an infirmity by not following Section 100 Cr.P.C., even then, the entire proceedings cannot be said to be vitiated. Mr. Deb relies upon a Judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Radha Kishan v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in : AIR 1963 SC 822 (Para-5).
26. Learned Counsel then relies upon a Judgment passed in Malak Khan v. Emperor reported in AIR 1946 Privy Council Page 16 (relevant at page 19) in support of his contention that the attendance of witnesses will not always be essential. In this Judgment, it has been observed as follows:
In their Lordships' opinion the presence of witnesses at a search is always desirable and their absence will weaken and may sometimes destroy the acceptance of the evidence as to the finding of the articles, but their attendance at the search is not always essential in order to enable evidence as to the search to be given. Where, as here, it is alleged and proved that the articles were produced by the accused man himself, Section 165 does not apply.
(Quoted)
27. Relying on the aforementioned paragraph and comparing it with Annexure P4 (at running page 53 of the Writ Petition, which is the objection raised by the Petitioner against the search conducted on 8.11.2008), Mr. Deb submits that in this case, the Petitioner had himself produced all the records and therefore, in view of the aforementioned observations of the Privy Council read with the admission of the Petitioner that he had himself produced all the records including the Sale Registers, Books of Accounts, Cash Memos Books, no infirmity can be said to have been committed even if there was no independent witness. Mr. Deb then, in support of the same contention, relies upon yet another Judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Sunder Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in : AIR 1956 SC 411 (Para-9) in support of his contention that if witnesses or respectable witnesses of the locality are not present, such a circumstance, by itself, would not invalidate the search. It would only affect the weight of evidence in support of the search and the recovery but it would not affect the entire proceedings. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been also held that since it only affects the weight of evidence, the same is a matter for the Courts of fact and the Supreme Court would not ordinarily go behind findings of fact. A Writ Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 would also not go behind matters which pertain to questions of fact.
28. Learned Counsel then submitted that the search in this case was not conducted under the Code of Criminal Procedure but it was conducted under the provisions of Para-25 of the West Bengal Urban Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003 and Para 25(2) therein uses the word 'so far as may be' which, suggests that it is not mandatory.
29. In a Judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Ram Deen Maurya (DR.) v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in : (2009) 6 SCC 735 it has been held in para-43, while discussing as to whether a rule is directory or mandatory, that it is a settled Rule of Interpretation, that if a Rule is mandatory, then it must be strictly construed and followed and an act done in breach thereof, will be invalid but if it is only directory, then the act will be valid although non-compliance may give rise to some other penalty, if provided by the Statute.
30. In the instant case, this Court notices that under the provisions of Para 25 (2), it has been specifically laid down that the provisions contained in Section 100 Cr.P.C. relating to search and seizure shall, so far as may be, apply to searches and seizures under this paragraph. In the background of such a provision having been provided read with the judgments referred to above, this Court is of the view that in order to test as to whether Para 25(2) is mandatory or directory, an aspect, be considered and that is, the application and insertion of the word 'shall' just before the words 'so far as may be'. Para 25(2) reads as follows:
25(2). The provisions as contained in Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) relating to search and seizure shall, so far as may be, apply to searches and seizures under this paragraph.
(Quoted)
31. To come to a conclusion as to whether a provision is mandatory or directory, the word 'shall' or 'may' may not always be a guiding factor but they have to be considered in the context and purpose for which such a provision has been made and the Courts must see the purpose behind inserting such words.
32. In the opinion of this Court, the purpose for which such a provision like Para 25(2) of the Control Order of 2003 was made was in the context of keeping in mind that arbitrary actions of the State should not be encouraged. A Division Bench of this Court has gone a step further while interpreting a provision as to whether it is Mandatory or Directory by keeping in mind that the guiding factor should be also the beneficial purpose for whom the Rule is made. This was considered by a Judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in WPCT 210 of 2008 on 19.8.2009. A photocopy of the said Judgment was produced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner during arguments. The relevant portions thereof are quoted below:
Having regard to the language used in the said Index No. 1033, the regulation, the issue now is required to be considered whether that provision is a mandatory provision or directory provision. To test a provision whether mandatory or directory, the use of the word 'shall' or 'may' is not a guiding factor, but the main guiding factor is context and purpose for which the provision has been made and the beneficial purpose for whom it is made. By a Constitution Bench judgment passed in the case Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. reported in : AIR 1962 SC 1694, in paragraph 12, the Court identified the legal position by holding to this effect ' it is needless to add that the employment of the auxiliary verb 'shall' is inconclusive and similarly the mere absence of the imperative is not conclusive either. The question whether any requirement is mandatory or directory has to be decided not merely on the basis of any specific provision which for instance, sets out the consequences of the omission to observe the requirement, but on the purpose for which the requirement has been enacted, particularly in the context of the other provisions of the Act and the general scheme thereof. It would, inter alia, depend on whether the requirement is insisted on as a protection for the safeguarding of the right of liberty of person or of property which the action might involve.' In the case Mannalal Khetan v. Kedar Nath Khetam reported in : AIR 1977 SC 536, a judgment of three Judges Bench, the Court held negative, prohibitory and exclusive words are indicative of the legislative intent when the statute is mandatory. Negative words are clearly prohibitory and are ordinarily used as a legislative device to make a statutory provision imperative. Non-compliance of provision even if not provides any offence, the provision of such test cannot be said as directory.
(Quoted)
33. From the aforementioned Judgments and read with the observations made by this Court above, this Court considers that the very purpose to insert Para 25(2) was to ensure reasonableness and non-arbitrariness during the course of search and seizure and therefore, it is a provision that is beneficient not only to the State but also to the person who is being searched as it seeks to enforce the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India rendering an arbitrary action illegal. In the background of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, read with the observations made by the Division Bench and also by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Deen Maurya (DR.) referred to above, this Court comes into conclusion that so far as the provisions of Para 25(2) of West Bengal Urban Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order 2003 is concerned, the same is mandatory and it must be strictly observed.
34. Having so held, the other question that has to be taken into consideration is as to whether the search and seizure conducted in the instant case was arbitrary or was it free from arbitrariness?
35. The facts which have already been narrated above clearly go to show that on 7.11.2008 the Area Inspector (F & S) Ballygunge Circle visited the shop of the Petitioner after close of sale of rationed articles and took physical measurement of all the rationed articles upon due verification thereof with the Sale Register, Stock Register, Cash Memo Books and made a satisfactory remark on the Petitioner's Inspection Book vide Annexure P2. This has been specifically stated in Para-5 Writ Petition. There is no denial of this Paragraph save and except what has been stated in Para-5 of the Affidavit-in-opposition which merely says that 'as to the allegation made in paragraphs 1 to 5 of the said Writ Petition save and except ordinary matters of record nothing is admitted by me'.
Annexure P2 is a document brought on record and therefore by reason of Para-5 of the Affidavit-in-opposition, it must be deemed that the Respondents admitted not only the existence of Annexure-P2 but also of the endorsement made by the Area Inspector thereon because the Deponent to the Affidavit-in-opposition has clearly stated that 'save and except ordinary matters of records', he does not admit anything.
36. So far as the statements made in Para-6 of the Writ Petition is concerned, the same contains a lot of information and they are that on the very next day i.e. on 8.11.2008 at about 5 P.M. two Joint Directors of the Directorate of Rationing West Bengal namely Biswanath Chakraborty (Joint Director, Kolkata North) and Jayanta Chakraborty (Joint Director, Kolkata South), entered into the Petitioner's shop and asked him to produce all Books of Accounts. They were accordingly produced and while Biswanath Chakraborty, Joint Director (Kolkata North) was satisfied that there was no irregularity, the other Joint Director of Kolkata South made an endorsement that the Petitioner had failed to produce the Cash Memo Books etc. and that the stock-cum-Rate Board was found blank and accordingly, he seized the Book of Accounts etc. It was also stated although two Joint Directors were there, only one signed and no physical measurement etc. were taken and the entire Seizure List was prepared in the absence of independent persons. The Petitioner has supported these statements by Annexure P3.
37. In reply, the Respondents, in their Affidavit-in-opposition have, very cleverly attempted to evade the statements by merely saying that the inspection was done by the Joint Director, Kolkata (South) who also seized the Books of Accounts and that the Joint Director (North) signed as a witness. In other words, the fact relating to the presence of two Joint Directors is admitted and the fact relating to the absence of others is not denied. Therefore, what stares us on the face is that two joint Directors of the same Department conducted the raid and one of them signed as a witness but there were no independent witnesses.
38. The submissions of Mr. A.K. Deb, learned Counsel for the State that since the Petitioner has himself stated that the Joint Director, North was satisfied and since he signed on the seizure list, he should therefore be deemed to be the independent witness, is an argument that must be rejected for being totally misconceived. The entire search and seizure was conducted by the Department and their top Officers and there was nobody else in terms of Para 25(2) of the West Bengal Urban Public Distribution System (maintenance and Control) Order 2003. The law Nemo debet judex in propria sua causa clearly applies in this case as it is a fundamental rule in the administration of justice that no man shall be a Judge of his own cause and a person cannot be a Judge in a Cause in which he is himself interested. These are well known concepts of law and if the facts of this case are analyzed in the background of these principles of law, it would be evident that it was the Department which conducted the raid, it was the Department which prepared the Seizure List, it was the Department which signed on the Seizure List and it was the Department which has attempted to initiate the Proceedings.
39. Under such circumstances, can there be any doubt that in this case that some of the Officers of the State have attempted to make a broth by themselves spinning their own so called 'magic wand', thereby attempting to create a situation to foster their own Causes without following the due process of law? The answer would be, yes, they have.
40. This, therefore, is a clear case of an extremely arbitrary exercise of power which is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Under such circumstances, this Court, therefore, has no option but to allow the Writ Petition and quash the Orders dated 14.2.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority. As a result, this Court also quashes the Order dated 17.6.2009 and declares that the enquiry, search and seizure conducted by the two Joint Directors on 8.11.2008 was clearly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of law and therefore, this Court also holds them responsible for committing such an illegality, and accordingly, fastens responsibility upon them.
41. As a result, the Licence of the shop of the Petitioner shall stand revived with all other legal consequences. The Writ Petition is allowed.
Upon appropriate Application(s) being made, urgent Xeroxed Certified copy of this Judgment, may be given/issued expeditiously subject to usual terms and conditions.