THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.11440 of 2011 ORDER : The petitioner, a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the manufacture and sale of fertilizers has field this Writ Petition seeking to quash the orders of the 2nd Respondent-Additional Director of Agriculture-IV and Notified Authority, Government of Andhra Pradesh in File No.Fert.II (1)1185/2009, dated 05-01-2011 confirmed by the appellate authority Commissioner of Agriculture, Government of Andhra Pradesh, respondent No.1 herein in his proceedings No.Fert.II (1) 1185/2009, dated 16-04-2011 and the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent dated 27- 12-2010 suspending the certificate of registration of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner company claims to be engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of mixed fertilizer in various states including the State of Andhra Pradesh. It has a valid permission and licence issued by the respective authorities. Insofar as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned, the licence was issued by the Additional Director of Agriculture, Commissionerate of Agriculture and the same is valid up to 21-07-2012. It is stated that the petitioner has obtained due permissions from the 1st Respondent for marketing fertilizer with its brand name “Jai Jawan”. It is stated that on 08-12-2010 some officials of the 2nd Respondent visited the business premises of the petitioner and inspected the records and registers. Based on the same, the 2nd Respondent issued a show cause notice dated 10-12-2010 to the petitioner alleging contravention of certain provisions of Fertilizers Control Order and calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why the licence should not be suspended/cancelled for contravention of Clauses 4 (a), 5 and 35 of the said Control Order. In the meanwhile it appears that the 3rd Respondent served a stop sale notice dated 27-12-2010 directing the petitioner not to conduct any sale on the ground that no explanation was offered in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 10-12-2010. On 27-12-2010, the 2nd Respondent issued proceedings to the petitioner suspending the licence for 15 days. Thereupon, regular proceedings were initiated by issuing a show cause notice dated 29-12-2010 proposing to cancel the certificate under clause- 31 of the Control Order. In pursuance of this show cause notice dated 29-12-2010, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 03-01-2011. By means of the said letter the petitioner alleged that the relevant material has not been received, therefore requested for supply of the relevant information so as to enable it to submit an effective explanation. The 2nd Respondent without acceding to the said request passed orders dated 05-01-2011 and cancelled the authorization. The relevant portion of the order is as follows : “Through reference 2nd cited, M/s.Chatak Agro (India) Private Limited has submitted their explanation stating that the copies of analysis and declared non-standard reports were not received at their end and expressed inability to furnish explanation in the matter. In this regard, it is to inform that, the explanation submitted is incorrect as the non-standard results were furnished to the dealers concerned from whom fertilizer samples were drawn by the Mandal Agricultural Officer under copy to the firm. Hence, explanation submitted by M/s.Chatak Agro (India) Private Limit is not convincing and satisfactory. Therefore, the Authorization letter of M/s.Chatak Agro (India) Private Limited bearing No.33/2009 valid up to 24-7-2012 which is under suspension for 15 days is hereby cancelled under clause 31 of FCO 1985 from the date of receipt of this order.” 3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 1st Respondent inter alia contending that relevant information required is not furnished and that an opportunity of hearing which is mandatory requirement has not been provided. On a consideration, the 1st Respondent passed orders in Proceedings No.Fert.II (1) 1185/09, dated 16-04-2011 dismissing the appeal. The relevant portion is as follows : “The Additional Director of Agriculture-IV & Notified Authority strenuously contended that, the main issue in the instant Appeal is 14 No’s of fertilizer samples declared as non-standards which is detrimental to Agriculture production as well as loss to the farming community. In my opinion, the cancellation order issued by the Additional Director of Agriculture-IV & Notified Authority holds good. Accordingly the Appeal is dispose off.” 4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for the aforesaid relief. 5. Heard Sri D.V.Sitha Ram Murthy, learned senior counsel instructed by Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture on behalf of Respondents. 6. It is well settled that no person shall be visited with a non- speaking order and without providing an opportunity to defend his case. It is also well settled that any order affecting the interest of a person shall comply with the principles of natural justice. One of the facets of natural justice is to record valid reasons supporting a conclusion. Giving reasons is sine qua non for exercise of the quasi-judicial power. If reasons are not assigned, the order, however laudable in its result, cannot be commended. 7. In AMBATI SRINIVASULU v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NELLORE [1] a Division Bench of this Court, while considering the case of cancellation of authorization of a Fair Price Shop dealer by a non- speaking order, observed as follows: “Rules of natural justice are multi faceted and multi dimensional. Different facets of these rules have been applied by the Courts in India to invalidate administrative as well as judicial, quasi-judicial actions and orders. One of the facets of the rules of natural justice is that all judicial, quasi-judicial and even administrative authorities who are entrusted with the task of deciding lis between the parties or passing order which affects the rights, interest or status of a person must record reasons in support of their findings and conclusions and such reasons should be communicated to the person concerned. The requirement of recording reasons by judicial, quasi-judicial and even administrative authorities and communication thereof to the affected persons has been highlighted and reiterated in various judgments of the Supreme Court including the often referred decisions in Harinagar Sugar Mills v. Shyam Sundar, M.P.Industries Limited v. Union of India, Bhagat Raja v. Union of India, Mahavir Prasad Santoshkumar v. State of U.P., Travancore Rayons v. UOI, Messrs Ajanta Industries v. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, Messrs Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Company v. Union of India, S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital State of Punjab v. Bagh Singh, State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar, State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal, Cyril Lasrado v. Juliana Maria Lasrado, Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. CIT and Manorama Sachan v. Lucknow Development Authority. In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (8 supra) the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court noticed the legal position obtaining in Australia, England, United States of America, referred to a large number of judicial precedents on the subject and laid down the following proposition: “… Keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion, that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The extent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework whereunder jurisdiction has been conferred on the administrative authority. With regard to the exercise of a particular power by an administrative authority including exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions the legislature, while conferring the said power, may feel that it would not be in the larger public interest that the reasons for the order passed by the administrative authority be recorded in the order and be communicated to the aggrieved party and it may dispense with such a requirement. It may do so by making an express provision to that effect as those contained in the Administrative Procedure Act, 1946 of U. S. A. and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, 1977 of Australia whereby the orders passed by certain specified authorities are excluded from the ambit of the enactment. Such an exclusion can also arise by necessary implication from the nature of the subject matter, the scheme and the provisions of the enactment. The public interest underlying such a provision would outweigh the salutary purpose served by the requirement to record the reasons. The said requirement cannot, therefore, be insisted upon in such a case.” 8. If the above principles are applied to the orders impugned in this Writ Petition it may be seen that both the primary authority as well as appellate authority have passed orders without recording any reasons whatsoever. In fact when the petitioner sought for material so as to enable it to submit its explanation, the 2nd Respondent did not even categorically record a finding that the material was in fact supplied. It has made only a vague reference to the copy said to have been marked by the Mandal Agricultural Officer. Even otherwise non-submission of explanation does not absolve the authority from considering the matter on merits. Indisputably, the 2nd Respondent has failed to do so. The appellate authority has not considered any of the contentions of the petitioner, except recording its opinion that the cancellation order held good. By any comprehension, the aforesaid orders, which have failed to take into consideration the request of the petitioner for supply of material documents, nor adhered to the basic principles of natural justice, can be said to be sustainable. 9. On a consideration of the matter as above, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and the matter is liable to be remanded for re-consideration. Inasmuch as the rights of the parties would have to be determined with reference to the basic material at the preliminary stage, I deem it appropriate to remand the matter for re-consideration to the 2nd Respondent, who is the primary authority. The 2nd Respondent is directed to furnish the relevant material sought for by the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 10. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 21st April, 2011. skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.11440 of 2011 Date : 21-04-2011 Between : Chatak Agro (India) Pvt. Ltd., a company duly registered under the provisions of he Companies Act, 1956, having its Office at 8-6-77/2/1, Lalitha Complex, Nagarjuna Colony, Besides Indian Gas Agency, Hastinapuram (South). L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. .. Petitioner and The Commissioner of Agriculture, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & 2 Others. .. Respondents [1] 2006 (1) ALD 229