THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9422 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner was issued licence under the A.P. State Silk Worm Seed and Coocon (Control) Rules, 1983 (for short ‘the Rules’), enabling him to manufacture and sell 10.00 lakh Cross Bread Disease Free Silkworm Laids (CBDFLs) in the area of operation mentioned therein, consisting of certain villages in the Chittoor District. The licence was to expire on 26.07.1997. The Commissioner of Sericulture, the first respondent, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 13.09.2001, stating that the petitioner did not submit application for renewal within time and under the Rules, and the petitioner was required to explain as to why the licence shall not be cancelled. An explanation was submitted by the petitioner on 01.10.2001, stating that the application for renewal was submitted within time and the concerned authority has returned the same insisting on production of no dues certificate from the Assistant Director of Sericulture. It is stated that necessary steps are being taken and there is no basis for the proposal to cancel the licence. Not being satisfied with the explanation, the first respondent issued the proceedings, dated 29.04.2002, cancelling the licence. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. The first respondent filed a counter-affidavit narrating the circumstances that led to cancellation of the licence of the petitioner. It is stated that despite repeated demands, the petitioner did not comply with the relevant conditions, and left with no alternative, the licence was cancelled. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Cooperation. The petitioner was granted a licence under the Rules. An application for renewal of the licence has to be made within two months before the date of expiry. In case there was any default on the part of the petitioner in submitting the application for renewal, the licence would have become inoperative. The question of issuing show cause notice to the petitioner proposing to cancel the same would arise, if only such a step was taken as a punitive measure. Whatever may have been the justification for the first respondent in issuing the show cause notice, once the petitioner had informed him that his application for renewal is being processed, at various stages, proceedings ought to have been dropped leaving it open to the petitioner to got his licence renewed. Cancellation of the licence of the petitioner, on the sole ground that the application was not made within time, is, in fact, a contradiction in terms. If the licence was not renewed, the question of cancellation thereof, does not arise. On the other hand, if the application of the petitioner for renewal is pending, it has to be taken into logical conclusion and the application has to be given disposal in one form or the other. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner for renewal, afresh. For this purpose, it shall be open to the petitioner to compile the earlier proceedings and present an application. The application shall be treated as having been made on the date of original presentation and final orders thereon shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of submission of such application. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt.29.12.2008 GJ