IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10500 of 2006 Between: M/s. Craftsmen Products Private Limited, Secunderabad. … Petitioner And Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce Dept., Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: None Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Industries & Commerce The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10500 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in de-registering the petitioner as Small Scale Industry vide proceedings dated 28.04.2006 of respondent No.3, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce and perused the record. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in manufacture of moulded panel doors, flush doors, panel shutters and fiber doors. It has averred that it is not a manufacturer of veneers or plywood and that it is not a saw mill. According to the petitioner, it is involved in assembling of the raw material of wood and processing the same to obtain the end product i.e., moulded panel doors. The petitioner received show cause notice dated 16.02.2006 issued by respondent No.3 on the instructions of respondent No.2 proposing to de-register it from the status of a Small Scale Industry on the allegation that such de-registration is called for in respect of saw mills, veneer and plywood manufacturing units as per the directions of the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India. The petitioner averred that on receipt of the said show cause notice, it has submitted its representation dated 31.03.2006 clarifying that as it is not a saw mill or manufacturer of veneers and plywood, the restriction imposed on the said categories cannot be applied to it. However, purporting to consider the said representation of the petitioner, respondent No.3 issued the impugned proceedings canceling its permanent registration certificate. I have carefully perused the impugned order, wherein it is stated that the petitioner’s reply received on 31.03.2006 was not satisfactory. In my opinion, the very purpose of issuing a show cause notice is to provide an opportunity to a person likely to be affected by the final order to explain why such an action should not be taken. The authority issuing show cause notice is therefore bound to consider the explanation or objections filed to the show cause notice and assign reasons for rejecting the explanation or objections. In a cryptic and laconic manner, respondent No.3 has rejected the petitioner’s objections as not satisfactory. This approach of respondent No.3 cannot be countenanced in law. On this short ground, the impugned order is quashed. Respondent No.3 is directed to reconsider the explanation of the petitioner and pass appropriate speaking order assigning reasons in the event he proposes to reject the explanation of the petitioner. Subject to the above, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.13155 of 2006 and WVMP.No.1086 of 2006 are disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 29.07.2010. ES