WP(C) 3514/2003 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B P KATAKEY Heard Mr B Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr J Handique, lear ned state counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioners, in this petition, has challenged the orders, both dated 5th April 2003, issued by the District Magistrate, Barpeta, cancelling the lice nses issued under the Court Fee Act, 1870, on ground of violation of relevant pr ovisions of the Act and also the terms and conditions of the license. The ground on which the said orders have been put to challenge is that l icenses had been cancelled without issuing any notice, thereby violating the pri nciples of natural justice. There has been no affidavit-in-opposition from the respondents, though t he matter is pending since the year 2003. The averments made by the petitioners in the writ petition that the impugned orders cancelling the licenses were passe d in violation of the principles of natural justice having not been denied are t o be accepted. No record has also been produced to demonstrate that the averment s made by the petitioners in the writ petition are incorrect. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were issued with the licenses to sell Court fee stamps. It also appears from the averments made in the writ pe tition that the Executive Magistrate, Barpeta had lodged 2(two) FIRs, both dated 3rd March 2003, with the officer-in-charge of Barpeta police station levelling certain allegations against the petitioners who had been issued the licenses und er the provisions of the aforesaid Act, on the basis of which the District Magis trate had passed the impugned orders cancelling the licenses on the ground of vi olation of provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870 and the terms and conditions of th e license. Since the petitioners were issued with the licenses, the authority can, no doubt, cancel it. Such cancellation, however, cannot be done without issuing any notice. By the impugned orders dated 5th April 2003, the licenses issued in favour of petitioners had been cancelled without issuing any notice and solely o n the basis of the allegations made in the FIRs lodged. The petitioners’ means o f livelihood had been snatched away without following the due process of law That being the position, the impugned orders dated 5th April 2003 passed by the District Magistrate, Barepta are set aside. However, keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, the District M agistrate, Barpeta is directed to proceed against them afresh by issuing show-ca use notice indicating the ground of initiation of such proceedings. The petition ers will be at liberty to file show-cause replies. The District Magistrate, ther eafter, shall decide the said proceeding. The entire exercise is directed to be completed within a period of 6(six) months from today. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.