WP(C) 3016/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Ha ndique, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The petitioners; namely Sri Mangal Chandra Sarkar and Sri Kanailal Sarka r, who were granted with license for selling stamp papers under the provisions o f the Indian Stamp Act, by the present petition, have challenged the order dated 3.4.2003 (Annexure-G to the writ petition) passed by the District Magistrate, B arpeta cancelling the licenses granted to them, apart from the licenses issued t o some other licensees, on the ground that they were suspected to have sold stam p papers at a higher rate and some of the stamp papers found in their possession might not be genuine. The learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the averments made in the writ petition more particularly in Para 14 thereof has submitted that the licenses granted to them have been cancelled by the impugned order without issu ing any notice and on the basis of suspicion only, thereby violating the princip le of natural justice. It has also been contended that since such order invites an adverse civil consequence affecting the livelihood of the petitioners, they a re entitled to notice before cancellation, which has not been done in the presen t case. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by any of the respondents thou gh the writ petition is pending for the last eight years. Mr. Handique, learned State counsel, however, has submitted that it is a pparent from the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate that the licen se granted in favour of the petitioners apart from others were cancelled as they were found to have sold the stamp papers at a rate which is higher than the pre scribed rate and that some of the stamp papers found in their possession were su spected to be not genuine. It appears from the impugned order dated 3.4.2003 passed by the District Magistrate, Barpeta that the licenses were cancelled on the allegation that the petitioners sold the stamp papers at a rate higher than the prescribed rate and on the suspicion that some of the stamp papers recovered from the possession of the petitioners might not be genuine. The said order does not reflect issuance of any notice to the petitioners asking them to show cause as to why the license s granted in their favour should not be cancelled. The petitioners at para 14 of the writ petition have also made the statement on oath that no notice was issue d prior to passing the order impugned in the present writ petition. As noticed above, no affidavit has been filed by any of the respondents controverting such positive statement made in the writ petition. No records have also been produced to demonstrate that notice in fact was issued prior to passi ng of the impugned order by the District Magistrate. In the absence of any material to the contrary the averments made by the petitioners in the writ petition relating to non issuance and service of notice has to be accepted. Since the impugned order dated 3.4.2003 has an adverse civi l consequence as it affects the livelihood of the petitioners, they are entitled to a notice before passing any order of cancellation of the license. Such notic e having not been issued the order of the District Magistrate dated 3.4.2003 can celling the license granted in favour of the petitioners cannot be sustained in law. The said order, in so far as the petitioners Sri Mangal Chandra Sarkar and Sri Kanailal Sarkar are concerned, is set aside. It would, however, not preclude the District Magistrate to initiate fres h proceeding for cancellation of the license in compliance with the legal requir ements and pass necessary order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed as indicated above. No cost.