refuses any application for license under Section 618, he shall at the request of the applicant, furnish such applicant with his reasons, for such refusal in writing under his signature without charge. 13. Be that as it may, certain submissions are made that second respondent issued only a memo by way of instructions and no G.O., as such had been issued and hence, in such circumstances, the first respondent is not bound to follow such instructions. This Court need not express any further opinion relating to this aspect. But, however, whatever may be the instructions, when the instructions are issued by the Government, the local body, municipal corporation, the Municipality or a gram panchayat may have to follow such instructions unless such instructions are otherwise invalid. Even otherwise, in the light of the language of sub-section (1) and also in the light of the fact that the petitioners had been continuing as surveyors or supervisors for sufficiently a long time, after getting due renewal, now the first respondent is not justified in refusing the renewal by taking such a stand, as taken in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that even if an element of discretion is available to the first respondent, in the light of the language of sub-section (1) of Section 618 of the Act, the discretion definitely was not exercised properly and further, as already observed, the instructions issued by the Government to be followed, when that being so, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned action cannot be sustained and the writ petitioners in the present writ petition are bound to succeed.
