IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2190 OF 2009 (MS) Rohit Khad Bhandar. ……..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. …..Respondents. Mr. S.S. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. S.S. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. The petitioner, who is the proprietor of M/s Rohit Khad Bhandar, was granted a licence under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 (from hereinafter referred to as the Control Order). The shop of the petitioner was raided on 18th June, 2009 and consequently, he was arrested on the same date. A notice was served upon the petitioner by the concerned authority on 25th June, 2009, while he was in Jail to show cause as to why his licence should not be cancelled. Admittedly, when the notice was given to the petitioner, he was in Jail and only released from Jail on 4th September, 2009, therefore, the said notice could not have been served upon the petitioner. All the same, the licence of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 3rd September, 2009 passed by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Champawat and as the petitioner had failed to give reply to the show cause notice, hence it was presumed that he was not willing to give reply. Evidently, the Control Order states that before cancelling the licence, the concerned authority has to give show cause notice to the person so that he may give reply. These provisions are based on established principles of “natural justice and fairplay”. In the considered opinion of this Court, they have clearly been violated. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel, who is appearing for respondent no. 1 and 2 fairly states that from the records, which is there before the Court, it is clear that the provisions as laid down in the Control Order have been violated and therefore, there is a violation of principles of natural justice and fairplay. On these set of facts, the order dated 3rd September, 2009 passed by respondent no. 2 is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. However, it is made clear that the respondents shall be free to proceed against the petitioner after giving him a show cause notice duly served upon him and thereafter order be passed in accordance with law. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall cooperate in the process, as laid down, and in case he fails to cooperate and does not appear before the concerned authority or fails to give a reply to the show cause notice within stipulated time, the concerned authority shall be free to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 24.12.2009 Rathour