22.8.98, which was later substituted by another place w.e.f. 9.11.98 vide order dated 10.11.98. Suffice it to say that as per the Authorisation Letters, not only the petitioners have been allotted permanent area for operating the Fair Price Shop but their permanent place of business have also been entered in the Authorisation Letters and therefore, it cannot be said that the Authorisation Letters initially issued in favour of the petitioners to operate Mobile Fair Price Shops have not been converted into the Authorisation Letters for operating the Fair Price Shops at specific place for distribution of the fair price commodities in the area allotted permanently. Thus, the cancellation of the Authorisation Letters issued in favour of the petitioners on the premise that they are operating Mobile Fair Price Shops appears to have been passed without looking into the record and taking into consideration the subsequent events. Admittedly, while cancelling the Authorisation Letters, no opportunity of hearing has been extended to the petitioners. In the considered opinion of this court, the cancellation of the Authorisation Letters issued in favour of the petitioners have civil and evil consequences and therefore, no order could have been passed by the authority concerned without giving them an opportunity of hearing.
