The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.23085 of 2009 Dated 7th July, 2010 Between: M/s.Balaji Fertilizers …Petitioner And The Assistant Director of Agriculture (R)/ Authorised Authority, Udayagiri, Nellore District and another. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.D.Ramalinga Swamy Counsel for the respondents: GP for Agriculture The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash order, dated 23-10-2009, issued by respondent No.1, suspending the petitioner’s authorisation to carry on retail fertilizer business. I have heard Sri D.Ramalinga Swamy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture representing the respondents. The petitioner is a dealer in fertilizers ad pesticides carrying on his business at Udayagiri of Nellore District. On 22-10-2009, respondent No.2 made an inspection and allegedly found certain irregularities. On the basis of the report submitted by respondent No.2, respondent No.1 issued proceedings, dated 23-10-2009, purportedly under Sub-Clause (1) (a) and (b) of Clause 31 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 (for short ‘the 1985 Order’), suspending the petitioner’s authorisation ‘until further orders’. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. The main ground of attack of the impugned order in the Writ Petition and as projected by the learned Counsel for the petitioner at the hearing is that the sin qua non for exercising power under Clause 31 (1) (a) and (b) of the 1985 Order is that the person, whose license is sought to be suspended, cancelled or debarred, should have been given a notice and opportunity of being heard before such an order is passed. The learned Counsel further submitted that admittedly, the said procedure has not been followed by respndentNo.1 and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is interalia stated that respondent No.1 has quoted the wrong provision instead of quoting Section 31 (2) of the 1985 Order. It is further averred that on account of certain irregularities committed by the petitioner, proceedings under Section 31 (1) of the 1985 Order have been initiated and pending consideration of the petitioner’s explanation, his license was merely suspended. It is further averred that the notice, as required under Clause 31 (1) of the 1985 Order, was served o the petitioner on 27-10-2009 for taking further action and that in view of the service of such notice, the petitioner cannot have any legitimate grievance. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.29989 of 2009 and WVMP.No.3907 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 7th July, 2010 Note: Furnish CC in one week. (B/o) lur