1. Petitioner No. 1 is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of urea in wholesale in different parts of the country, including the State of Bihar. It has come to this Court with this writ petition, along with one of its Directors and one of its employees, seeking to challenge the orders cancelling the certificate of registration granted to it under the provisions of the Furtilizer (Control) Order, 1985 (the F.C.O. for short) for carrying on the business of selling fertilizer as a wholesale dealer in the State of Bihar.

2. The petitioner was given a notice to show cause why its certificate of registration be not cancelled for committing a number of irregularities and violating several directions issued by the authorities in making supplies of urea to this State during the Rabi season 1998-99. The show cause notice was issued by the Director, Agriculture in his capacity as the Registering Authority under the F.C.O. under his memo No. 21, dated 4-1-1999. The petitioner gave its reply to the notice by letter, dated 7-1-1999 (Annexure-9). Not being satisfied with the petitioners explanation the director Agriculture-cum-Registering Authority by his memo No. 564, dated 4-2-1999 (Annexure 10) directed for cancelling the petitioners certificate of registration bearing No. 64, dated 10-5-1996. Against the order passed by the registering authority the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Agriculture Production Commissioner, the appellate authority prescribed under clause 32 of the F.C.O.

3. According to the petitioner, in course of hearing of the appeal, the appellate authority desired for a more detailed order from the Registering Authority, dealing elaborately with the grounds on which the petitioners certificate was directed to be cancelled. The Registering Authority then, under his memo No. 40, dated 24-2-1999, submitted an order shown to have been passed on 18-1-1999 (Annexure-12). After hearing the parties the appellate authority by order, dated 30-3-1999 (Annexure 14) rejected the petitioners appeal and affirmed the direction for the cancellation of its certificate of registration.

4. On a perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority it appears that the direction for cancellation of the petitioners certificate was upheld on the following grounds :1. In violation of the directions issued by the authorities the petitioner made supply and sale of urea which was not in accordance with the districtwise allocation made by the Director, Agriculture. The issue of contravention of districtwise allocation by the petitioner was considered by the appellate authority mainly in respect of the districts of East and West Champaran with some references also being made to the districts of Begusarai and Saharsa.2.1. In violation of the directions issued, the petitioner sent the railway rakes carrying its urea to Adapur and Raxaul which were not in the list of approved rake points in the order issued by the Director, Agriculture. Accoridng to the order issued by the Director, Agriculture, rakes carrying supplies for the districts of East and West Champaran could only be sent to Motihari.2.2. To petitioners action in sending the rakes to Adapur and Raxaul was further held bad as it did not have any buffer godowns at those places.

3. And finally the petitioner violated the directions by selling urea from the rakes to wholesalers without giving prior intimation to the authorities and obtaining their approval concerning the wholesalers to whom the stock was to be sold.

5. According to the appellate authority even if the action of the petitioner in making supplies of urea to East Champaran, far in excess of its allocation for that district were to be condoned, the other two contraventions made by the petitioner were very serious and fully justified the cancellation of its certificate of registration.

6. Mr. Navaniti Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the order cancelling the petitioners certificate of