THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23716 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner established a Saw Mill and Timber Depot at Pallegudem, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District, after obtaining necessary permissions and licences from the authorities concerned, of the Forest Department. The Divisional Forest Officer, Khammam, the third respondent herein, issued proceedings, dated 14.11.1998, cancelling the depot licence with immediate effect, in exercise of the power under Rule 11 of the Rules published in G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 17.07.1998. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Conservator of Forests, Khammam, the second respondent herein. The appeal was rejected on 02.05.2000. Therefore, he approached the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, the first respondent herein, by way of revision. The revision was also dismissed, through proceedings, dated 12.10.2001. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the order, dated 14.11.1998, was passed in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and neither the appellate authority nor the first respondent have taken this plea into account. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the fact that the depot licence of the petitioner was cancelled without a show cause notice, is not disputed. However, the said lapse is sought to be explained by stating that a notice was issued on 15.01.1999 and on consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, it was found that the order, dated 14.11.1998, does not warrant any change. The nature of allegation made against the petitioner is mentioned. Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Forests. The petitioner held valid licence to run a Saw Mill as well as Timber Depot. Alleging that certain irregularities were noticed against the petitioner in the form of tampering of records, forgery of Form-II transit permits, in the course of inspection by the Forest Special Party, an order was passed on 14.11.1998 straight away cancelling the depot licence. As a matter of fact, the report of the Forest Special Party is dated 14.11.1998 and on the same day, the licence was cancelled. In its appeal before the second respondent and the revision before the first respondent, the petitioner categorically pleaded that it was not issued a show cause notice before the depot licence was cancelled. They did not choose to advert to that contention and expressed their satisfaction after seeing the record. Thus, it emerges that the cancellation of the depot licence of the petitioner was resorted to without issuing a show cause notice. In the counter-affidavit, an effort is made to justify the impugned order. It is stated that about two months subsequent to the cancellation of the depot licence, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and on a consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, it was found that the order of cancellation, dated 04.11.1998, does not warrant any modification or change. Even if this effort was genuinely carried out, it is nothing but a futile exercise. Once an order cancelling a licence is found to be violative of principles of natural justice, the issuance of a subsequent notice does not cure the fatal defect. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is, however, made clear that it shall be open to the third respondent to pass fresh orders, after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:19.12.2008 kdl