HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24551 of 2005 Date : 30.10.2009 Between : Cherukuri Veerabhadraiah. …..Petitioner And The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24551 of 2005 ORDER : The petitioner, who is a dealer in Pesticides and Fertilizers, has filed this writ petition, questioning the order dated 16.07.2005, passed in Proceedings No.A2/300/2005 by the 2nd respondent- Assistant Director of Agriculture, Madhira, and the order dated 31.08.2005, passed by the appellate authority in Appeal No.Fert.II (1) 1052 of 2005. 2. On 18.06.2005, the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Madhira, inspected the premises of petitioner’s shop. On the ground that there were cement bags stored in the premises, there was no person to show the registers, the license was not produced, and further that there is no indication of the licensed premises, proceedings were initiated for cancellation of the license of petitioner’s shop, by issuing a show cause notice under the provisions of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, which was served on him on 18.06.2005. With reference to the said show cause notice, the petitioner has filed his explanation dated 22.06.2005, denying the allegations levelled against him, but, without recording any finding on the explanation offered by the petitioner, merely stating that the petitioner is intentionally violating the provisions of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, the 2nd respondent has ordered for cancellation of license of the petitioner’s shop. Though the petitioner has preferred appeal before the appellate authority, the same has also ended in dismissal. 3. In this writ petition, primarily it is the contention of the petitioner that having issued the show cause notice and received the explanation dated 22.06.2005, offered by the petitioner, the respondents ought not to have passed the orders cancelling the license of his shop, without recording any findings on the allegations made by him in his explanation. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, that as the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, by following due procedure, the impugned order of cancellation is passed by the primary authority, which has rightly been confirmed by the appellate authority and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 4. Under Clause 31 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, the Notified Authority, Registering Authority, or as the case may be, the Controller may, after giving the authorized dealer or the holder of certificate of registration or certificate of manufacture or any other certificate granted under the Order, an opportunity of being heard, is empowered either to suspend or cancel the registration/license. In this case, though certain allegations are made in the show cause notice that was served on the petitioner on 18.06.2005, but inspite of the explanation offered by the petitioner in his letter dated 22.06.2005, no finding is recorded on the allegations made by the petitioner in his explanation. Though the allegations made against the petitioner are explained, the impugned order of cancellation is passed merely stating that the petitioner is intentionally violating the provisions of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. When the show cause notice was issued with specific allegations and an explanation was offered by the petitioner, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to record findings on the allegations levelled against the petitioner, with reference to the explanation offered by him. But, merely observing that the petitioner is intentionally violating the provisions of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, no order can be passed, suspending the license of his shop. The appellate authority has also not considered the matter in proper perspective and simply confirmed the order passed by the primary authority. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by setting aside the orders passed by both the primary and the appellate authorities and remand the matter for fresh consideration by the 2nd respondent-Assistant Director of Agriculture. 5. Accordingly, the order dated 16.07.2005, passed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No.A2/300/2005 and the order of the appellate authority, dated 31.08.2005, passed in Appeal No.Fert.II (1) 1052, are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent-Assistant Director of Agriculture, Madhira, with a direction to consider it afresh and pass appropriate orders after taking into consideration the explanation offered by the petitioner in his letter dated 22.06.2005, as expeditiously as possible. 6. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 30th October 2009 ajr