THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.23312 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioners are aggrieved by the proceedings dated 13.09.2010 issued by the 3rd respondent- Additional Director of Agriculture-IV and Notified Authority, Commissionerate of Agriculture, A.P., Hyderabad, whereunder the Authorization Letter bearing No.222/2007 valid up to 26.07.2013 of the petitioners, to carry on the wholesale business of fertilizers, was cancelled, on the ground of violation of certain clauses of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It appears, when the petitioners, questioning the seizure of stocks from their godowns, approached this Court, this Court, ultimately, in W.A.No.652 of 2010, by judgment dated 06.09.2010, directed the respondent officials to release the stocks seized from the godowns of the petitioners, on certain conditions of the petitioners furnishing bank guarantee and a written undertaking as per the terms directed in the judgment, and also issued directions for disposal of the 6-A proceedings within a period of six months. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said 6-A proceedings initiated against the petitioners are not yet finalized and pending the same, the impugned proceedings were issued without properly considering the explanation dated 06.09.2010 offered by them to the show cause notice dated 25.08.2010 issued by the 3rd respondent. Learned counsel also raised certain contentions regarding the merits of the impugned proceedings. Learned Government Pleader for Agriculture appearing for the respondents fairly conceded that the impugned proceedings were issued without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioners. A perusal of the impugned proceedings would indicate that the authority who issued the same did not deal with the explanation offered by the petitioners to the show-cause notice dated 25.08.2010 issued by him, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners and admitted to by the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture appearing for the respondents. Since the impugned proceedings were issued without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioners to the show-cause notice, the same cannot be sustained and is therefore liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings dated 13.09.2010 are set aside. However, the 3rd respondent is at liberty to pass appropriate speaking orders, after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioners and the material that may be placed, and after providing the petitioners opportunity of personal hearing, as required under law. The writ petition is allowed subject to the above observations. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 24th September, 2010 Note:- Communicate operative portion of the order by wire at party’s costs. B/o IBL