( 1 ) THE petitioner is challenging the proceedings of the first respondent-Director of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad in C. C. S. Reference No. E2/815/1990, dated 3-1-1991 confirming the order of the second respondent dated 5-10-1990 cancelling the licence issued to the petitioner under the provisions of A. P. Petroleum Products Order, 1980. 2. The petitioner has a chequered career. The licence issued to the petitioner was cancelled by the second respondent by proceedings dated 12-7-1990. The cancellation took place in pursuance of a show-cause notice issued by the second respondent basing on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gali-veedu. On the basis of a report submitted by the said officer i. e. the Mandai Revenue Officer dated 23-3-1990, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the second respondent on 31-3-1990, for which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 11-4-1990. However, the second respondent passed the orders of cancellation on 12-7-1990. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent appellate authority. The first respondent by the orders dated 7-8-1990 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and remanded the matter to the second respondent to dispose of the matter keeping in view the provisions of clause 28 of the A. P. Petroleum Order 1980 and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case. Consequent on the remand order, the second respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 1-9-1990. The second respondent passed final orders on 5-10-1990 confirming the order of cancellation passed by him on 12-7-1990. Against the said order of cancellation, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent and the same was dismissed on 3-1-1991. The said proceedings of the Appellate Authority confirming the orders of the Licencing Authority, are assailed in this writ petition. 3. The matter relates to the irregularities committed by the petitioner while conducting the business. Six irregularities have been pointed out by the Licensing Authority. Admittedly, the said irregularities were framed by the Licencing Authority on the basis of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Galiveedu dated 23-3-1990. The principal grievance of the petitioner apart from the merits of the case, is that the primary report, on the basis of which the charges, were framed against the petitioner, has not been furnished to him. Therefore, the proceedings are vitiated by the principles of natural justice, in as much as the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to defend his case effectively. Even on merits also, he submits that no case has been made out and the authorities have not properly considered his explanation. On this ground also, the impugned orders shall have to be set aside. 4. The third ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been conducting the business from 1963 and there has been no complaint whatsoever except the present cancellation. Thus, the impugned action virtually denies his livelihood. The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submits that in as much as the charges are proved against the petitioner and the first respondent having remanded the matter for giving an opportunity, the second respondent has complied with the directions of the Appellant-authority. He was issued with a show-cause notice on 1-9-1990 and the petitioner was heard on 5-9-1990. Since no new points have been brought to the notice of the second respondent, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and accordingly, the earlier order of cancellation passed by the him, was confirmed. Thus, the learned Government Pleader submits that the requirement of Clause 28 of the A. P. Petroleum Order, 1980 has been complied with. 5. For proper appreciation of the case, it is necessary to consider the effect of Clause 28 of the said order. Clause 28 of the A. P. Petroleum Order, 1990 reads as follo