HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.2525 of 2011 Date : 30-3-2011 Between : Vanamadi Satyanarayana and another .. Petitioners and Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry & Fisheries, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri E.Sambasiva Pratap Counsel for respondents : G.P. for Fisheries The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in canceling the registrations of mechanized fishing boats belonging to the petitioners under the provisions of the A.P. Marine Fisheries (Regulation) Act 1994 and the A.P. Marine Fisheries (Regulation) Rules 1995, vide proceedings No.189/A4/2011, dated 4-2-2011, without issuing notices and affording an opportunity as illegal and arbitrary. In the view this court is proposing to take, it is not necessary to record the facts in detail, but it will suffice to note that the petitioners are the owners of two fishing boats bearing registration Nos.9819/EG-III/MFV-I and 9817/EG- III/MFV-I. They have purchased the above boats from a person who is a resident of Tamil Nadu. When the said boats were at fishing harbour, Kakinada, the inspection team has submitted a report to respondent No.3, who thereupon initiated proceedings and issued the impugned proceeding whereby he has cancelled the registrations of the boats and directed the Authorised Officer-III to confiscate the boats. The main ground of challenge to this action is that neither a notice was given to the petitioners nor an opportunity of being heard was afforded to them before passing the impugned order. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, while seeking to justify the passing of the impugned order on merits, he has not denied the averment of the petitioners that the impugned order was not preceded by any notice to the petitioners. The law is well settled that before any order affecting the rights of a party is passed, such party is entitled to a notice and an opportunity of being heard. (See : State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and others [1] and Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India [2]). In view of this settled legal position and the admitted fact that the impugned order is not preceded by notices to the petitioners, the impugned order is quashed only on this short ground without going into the merits of the pleas raised by the parties. Liberty is given to respondent No.3 to initiate proceedings afresh and give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners before passing any order adverse to their interests. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. ____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 30-3-2011 AM [1] AIR 1967 S.C. 1269 [2] AIR 1981 S.C. 818