Mandatory opportunity of hearing must be afforded before cancelling fertilizer authorization under Clause 31.

The petitioner, a proprietary firm authorized to sell fertilizer under the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985, challenged the cancellation of its authorization letter by Respondent No. 4

On July 28, 2025, an inspection was conducted at the petitioner’s shop while the petitioner was away; his parents, who were present, could not produce statutory documentation

Consequently, the licensing authority canceled the authorization via an order dated August 21, 2025

This order was subsequently affirmed by the appellate authority on November 6, 2025

The petitioner approached the High Court contending that the orders were passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions

Whether the cancellation of the fertilizer authorization letter without providing a show cause notice or an opportunity of hearing violates Clause 31 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India

Clause 31 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985, which mandates that a Notified Authority may suspend or cancel an authorization letter only after giving the holder an "opportunity of being heard"

Actions under this clause constitute a quasi-judicial function requiring due application of mind and adherence to the elementary principles of natural justice and fair play

Article 14 of the Constitution of India, establishing that administrative actions entailing serious consequences must follow a fair procedure

The court observed that the cancellation of a fertilizer license is a serious measure that necessitates strict adherence to procedural safeguards

Upon reviewing the record, the court found that "no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner" before the impugned order was passed

The court determined that the licensing authority failed to perform its quasi-judicial duty to hear the petitioner as required under Clause 31(1) of the 1985 Order

Furthermore, the court held that the appellate authority erred by affirming the initial order without addressing the underlying jurisdictional defect regarding the lack of a hearing

Consequently, the failure to observe natural justice rendered the administrative action arbitrary and violative of Article 14

The High Court quashed the cancellation order dated August 21, 2025, and the appellate order dated November 6, 2025. The matter was relegated to the concerned authorities to pass a fresh, speaking order after providing the petitioner with a due opportunity of hearing within 45 days. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs