S. PARVATHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner questions the order in proceedings No. A/183/94 dated 12-9-1994 of the 2nd respondent herein and seeks a writ of Certiorari quashing the same. By the said order, the licence of the petitioner bearing CR (Retail) No. 1/93-94 dated 24-8-93 under the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Order ) was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner contravened Clauses 4, 5, 8, 19 (a) and (c) and 35 of the Order. The order reads as follows: -"due to contravention of Clauses 4, 5, 8, 19 (a) and (c) the C. R. No. 1/93-94 dt. 24-8-93 of M/s. Mahalaxmi Traders, palwancha was suspended on 2-9-94 vide reference cited with immediate effect until further orders. But there was no response from the licenced Dealer (Sri Dara Venkateswarlu prop, of M/s. Mahalaxmi Traders, palwancha ). Vide reference 3rd cited, the Prop, of m/s. Mahalaxmi Traders, Palwancha had been served a show cause notice on 8-9-94 dalling show cause for contravention of clauses 4,5,8,19 (a) and (c), 35 of FCO 1985 duly giving 3 days time. But, there is no response from the proprietor of M/s. Mahalaxmi Traders, palwancha. Hence, his C. R. (Retail) No. 1/93-94 dt. 24-8-93 is hereby cancelled as per powers vested under Clause 31 of FCO, 1985. "

( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner was served with a show cause notice bearing No. A/183/94 dated 8-9-1994 stating that it was found that the petitioner committed the following irregularities: -"1. Not displayed the quantities of opening stocks of different fertilizers held by him. 2. List of prices (rates) of each fertilizers found under clause 3 and for the time being in force. 3. Failed to issue cash or credit memo to the purchasers, 4. Failed to get included source of supply being dealt by him, in his C. R. 5. It is seemed to be sold the D. A. P. not having permitted standards. 6. It is said to be stocked the DAP not marked in the manner laid down in this order b) a substitute for another fertilizer under the name of DAP. c) Adulterated. 7. Not maintained stock register properly. and thus he contravened Clauses 4,5,8,19 (a) and (c) and 35 of the Order and asking him to show cause why his licence dated 24-8-1993 should not be cancelled. He was asked to submit his explanation within 3 days. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner did not submit any explanation.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 12-9-1994 cancelling the petitioner s licence is bad on the ground that no personal hearing was given to the petitioner before the said order was made. He submits that the first proviso to sub-clause (2) of Clause 31 of the Order requires a hearing to be given to the petitioner before licence is cancelled and that hearing in that context would mean personal hearing. He relies on the order of d. Reddeppa Reddi, J. , in M. Eswaraiah vs. Commissioner and Director of Agriculture (1) order in W. P. No. 1340 of 1993 Dt. 16-2-1993 wherein the learned Judge dealt with sub-clause (1) of Clause 31 which, so far as it is relevant, is as follows: -" (1) A registering authority may, after giving the holder of a certificate of registration or a certificate of manufacture or any other certificate granted under this order, an opportunity of being heard, suspend or cancel such certificate on any of the following grounds. . . . . . . "the learned Judge has held as follows: -"in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is admitted that the petitioner was not afforded the opportunity of being-heard. However, it is maintained that it is not necessary to give such hearing as the petitioner was given opportunity to submit his explanation twice. I am not able to agree with his contention. It is well settled that when the statute provides particular procedure, the same should be strictly complied with. True, the petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard by the first respondent, namely, the appellate authority.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document