IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 22659 of 2008 Between: Sri. Lokesh Enterprises, D.No. 19-7-4, Bandlamitta, Ongole Prakasam District, rep. by its Proprietor, Dacherla Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Rosaiah, Aged: 38 yrs, R/o. Kamepalli Village, Jarugumalli Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Director of Agricuture ( Regular ) Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 The Agicultural Officer, ( Fertilizers Inspector) Ongole, Prakasam District. 4 The Addl. Director of Agriculture -II, A.P., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, declaring the impugned proceedings vide Rc.No. A/98/08-09, dt. 26.09.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent, without there being issuance of any show cause notice and without following the prodecure contemplated under Clause31(2) of Ferlizer's Control Orders,1985 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Constitutional provisions nad against all connons of fair-play and Natural Justice and contrary to the peirit of Cluse 31(2) of Ferlizer's Control Orders, 1985 and consequently set- aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SITA RAM CHAPARLA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR AGRICULTURE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.NO.22659 OF 2008 ORDER The petitioner is a registered dealer in fertilizers holding a Certiﬁcate of Registration granted under the provisions of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985( for short “the Control Order”). This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the 2nd respondent-Assistant Director of Agriculture dated.26-09-2008 cancelling the petitioner’s Certiﬁcate of Registration in exercise of powers under Clause.31 of the Control Order, as arbitrary and illegal. The facts, in brief, are as under : The 3rd respondent-Agricultural Oﬃcer (Fertilizers Inspector) Ongole who inspected the petitioner’s business premises on 10-09-2008 submitted a report alleging contraventions of the provisions of the Control Order. On the basis of the said report the 2nd respondent by order dated.12- 09-2008 suspended the Certiﬁcate of Registration of the petitioner and aggrieved by the same the petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.20393 of 2008. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court by order dated.19-09-2008 holding that the suspension as an interim measure cannot be held to be beyond the scope of the Control Order or without authority. Thereafter the impugned order dated.26-09-2008 came to be passed by the 2nd respondent cancelling the Certiﬁcate of Registration of the petitioner in exercise of powers under Clause-31 of the Control Order. It is primarily contended by the petitioner that the impugned order which was passed without furnishing to the petitioner the details and the nature of the contraventions alleged to have been committed and without giving him an opportunity of being heard as mandated under the ﬁrst proviso to Clause.31(2) of the Control Order, was illegal apart from being in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also contended that since the 2nd respondent proceeded with the matter with closed mind and prejudged the issue as is evident from the impugned order itself, the same is bad and liable to be set aside on that ground also. The further contention is that since the statements of the farmers relating to the alleged purchase of fertilizers by them were recorded on 24th and 25th September 2008, long after the issuance of the show cause notice and the said statements were admittedly not furnished to the petitioner, the same cannot form the basis for the impugned order of cancellation. The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the above contentions further submitted that the action of the respondents in not furnishing the details of the alleged contraventions is also in violation of their own statement which was recorded by this Court in W.P.No.20393 of 2008. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that an alternative remedy of appeal is available against the impugned order of cancellation under Clause-32 of the Control Order. Though no counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled, the learned Government Pleader placed before this Court the entire record relating to the impugned order and submitted that the details of the contravention alleged to have been committed by the petitioner were speciﬁed in the show-cause notice, but the petitioner evaded service of the same. The record placed before this Court shows that the business premises of the petitioner was inspected by the 3rd respondent on 10.09.2008 and alleging that the person who was present in the premises at the time of the inspection by name Madhu Babu refused to handover the records and sign on the inspection report, a show-cause notice dated 10.9.2008 was issued to the petitioner informing the said fact and other irregularities noticed in the inspection and calling upon the petitioner to submit the details by 11-09-2008. The said fact was also recorded in the panchanama dated.10-09-2008. On 11- 09-2008 the 3rd respondent issued the stop sale notice under Clause.28 of the Control Order. On 11-09-2008 another panchanama was recorded by the 3rd respondent stating that the same person by name Madhu Babu was present in the shop and refused to receive the notice. Thereafter the 2nd respondent issued the order of suspension dated 12-09-2008. The said order was aﬃxed to the petitioner’s shop stating that the person available in the shop refused to receive the same. On the same day i.e. 12-09-2008 a show cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation to the alleged contraventions speciﬁed there under. The said notice initially sent by messenger could not be served since the petitioner’s shop was closed on 12.9.2008. Thereafter, the said notice was sent by registered post on 13.9.2008 addressed to the Proprietor of the petitioner ﬁrm at Door No.8-522 (9), Pandaripuram, Ongole. It was received by one Tulasi as could be seen from the postal acknowledgment received by the oﬃce of the 2nd respondent on 22.9.2008. However, the record also contained the returned cover with a postal acknowledgment “refused” dated 20.09.2008. The learned Government Pleader states that the said returned cover was received in the oﬃce of the 2nd respondent on 25.09.2008. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the show cause notice could not be served on the petitioner. Consequently the impugned order was passed without taking into consideration the version of the petitioner with regard to the irregularities/contraventions allegedly found by the 3rd respondent in his inspection on 10-09-2008. This Court also noticed that the statement of the farmers, were recorded on 25-09-2008 after the show-cause notice and thus the petitioner had no opportunity to rebut the allegations made by the farmers. In the circumstances, to meet the ends of justice, I deem it appropriate to give a further opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before proceeding further on the basis of the alleged contraventions found in the inspection dated 10.9.2008. Accordingly the impugned order of cancellation is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with directions as under : (1) The show-cause notice dated 12.9.2008 together with the statements of the farmers recorded by the 3rd respondent and other supporting material, if any, shall be served on the petitioner. (2) Thereafter, it is open to the petitioner to submit his explanation within the time speciﬁed in the show-cause notice. (3) If any such explanation is received within the time specified, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. (4) The entire exercise, as directed above, shall be completed within ﬁfteen (15) days from the date of receipt of this order by the respondents since the ﬁrst proviso to Clause 31(2) mandates that the ﬁnal order after giving an opportunity of being heard either revoking the order of suspension or cancelling the certiﬁcate shall be within ﬁfteen (15) days from the date of issue of the order of suspension. (5) It is also made clear that the show-cause notice shall be served at the business premises of the petitioner during working hours on any working day and when such notice is tendered the same shall be received by the petitioner or by a person authorized on his behalf. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J 23rd October,2008 *TSNR