JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated April 10, 1989 issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Jaunpur and the order dated October 17, 1989 passed on behalf of the Director of Industries, U.P. Kanpur; (b) issue writ, order or direction of suitable nature commanding the respondent to treat the petitioner's provisional registration certificate dated January 20, 1989 as continuing and/or to command the respondents to issue a fresh provisional registration certificate in favour of the petitioner; (c) issue a writ, order or direction of suitable nature commanding the respondent to issue the final registration certificate in favour of the petitioner, in pursuance of the actual installation of the Vanaspati Ghee manufacturing plant by the petitioner; (d) issue a writ, order or direction of suitable nature commanding the respondents not to insist upon the petitioner to obtain an industrial licence under the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 nor to take any action against the petitioner for not obtaining licence; (e) issue any other and/or further writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; (f) award costs of the petition in favour of the petitioner". 2. Short of unnecessary details, the petitioner wants to deal in the manufacture of vanaspati ghee and for the aforesaid purpose, a unit is proposed to be set up at village Naupur, Tahsil Kerakat, District Jaunpur. In this connection, a provisional certificate dated January 20, 1989, contained in Annexure 3 attached with the writ petition, was issued. On the basis of the provisional registration certificate a unit is entitled to several benefits and the certificate facilitates the actual installation of the unit and grant of final registration certificate as is evident from the allegation made in paragraph 7 of the writ petition. It appears that the provisional registration certificate granted to the petitioner has been cancelled through the order dated April 10, 1989 contained in Annexure 5' attached with the writ petition. The aforesaid order dated April 10, 1989 has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it does not specify the reasons for cancellation and it has been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The aforesaid order dated April 10, 1989 has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it does not specify the reasons for cancellation and it has been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the communication dated October 17, 1989 contained in Annexure 12' attached with the writ petition. The ground for attacking the aforesaid communication dated October 17, 1989 has been mentioned in paragraphs 23 to 27 of the writ petition. The main grounds taken by the petitioner are to the effect that the petitioner is neither a factory as contemplated by Section 3(c) of the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 and that the petitioner's proposed unit is not an 'industrial undertaking' as defined in the aforesaid Act of 1951. Therefore, it was not necessary for the petitioner to apply for a licence before the Government of India. The relevant allegations have been made in paragraph 26 of the writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before us that in the absence of original registration certificate and due to the communication contained in Annexure 12', the petitioner shall be greatly prejudiced and handicapped in installing the proposed unit. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Annexure'5' deserves to be quashed as the aforesaid order was passed in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. He has also stressed that the communication contained in Annexure 12' does not apply to the petitioner's unit as it is neither a factory nor 'industrial undertaking' contemplated by the provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. In this connection our attention was invited to the project report mentioned at page 82 of the paper book which indicates that there were only 41 persons working in the unit. 4. The learned counsel for the State has submitted in reply the order contained in Annexure 5' is not bad in law. According to him, no show cause notice was required to be given before cancelling the provisional registration certificate. He has not been able to controvert the allegation of the petitioner that the petitioner's unit is not covered by the provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. In the counter affidavit, there is no assertion that more than fifty workers worked on any day in the petitioner's unit. 5. He has not been able to controvert the allegation of the petitioner that the petitioner's unit is not covered by the provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. In the counter affidavit, there is no assertion that more than fifty workers worked on any day in the petitioner's unit. 5. On weighing the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, we think that the cancellation of the provisional registration certificate in favour of the petitioner on April 10, 1989 through Annexure 5' is in clear contravention of the principles of natural justice. Even if there is no provisions for issuing notice to the petitioner before cancelling the certificate, it was but proper for the authorities to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner for explaining the position why provisional certificate should not be cancelled in the facts and circumstances of the case. Since the authority has committed patent error and has given no reason in the order contained in Annexure 5' we think that the order dated April 10, 1989 should be quashed on the ground that it is cryptic and contained no reason as well as it was passed without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to justify the continuance of the provisional registration certificate. 6. Since the allegations made by the petitioner in paragraphs 20 to 27 have not been specifically controverted and demonstrated by the counsel for the opposite parties as wrong, we have no option but to reply upon the allegations made in those paragraphs as well as the project report on page 82 of the writ petition. In paragraph 22 of the counter affidavit the limit of S.S.L. unit has been shown as Rs.35 lacs but it has not been indicated therein that the number of persons employed on the petitioner's proposed unit is more than fifty. Therefore, we think that the provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulations) Act, 1951 are not attracted to the case of the petitioner. The direction contained in Annexure 12' dated October 17, 1989 indicating that the petitioner's unit needed industrial licence is bad in law because section 11 of the Industries (Development and Regulations) Act, 1951 is applicable to a new industrial undertaking. The direction contained in Annexure 12' dated October 17, 1989 indicating that the petitioner's unit needed industrial licence is bad in law because section 11 of the Industries (Development and Regulations) Act, 1951 is applicable to a new industrial undertaking. The definition given in clause (d) of section 3 of the Act contemplates industries carried on in one or more factories and the term factory contemplates the premises where fifty persons work on a day. Therefore the provisions of the aforesaid Act are inapplicable to the case of the petitioner because only 41 persons have been shown working on the petitioner's premises. In our opinion Annexures 5 and 12 both are bad-in-law and deserve to be quashed. 7. In the result, the writ petitions succeeds and the order dated April 10, 1989 contained in Annexure 5 and communication dated October 17, 1989 contained in Annexure 12 are hereby quashed. Since the order dated April 10, 1989 contained in Annexure 5 has been quashed, the provisional registration certificate dated January 20, 1989 would become operative. Therefore, it is not necessary to ask the respondent to issue a fresh provisional registration certificate. For final registration certificate the petitioner should approach the authority concerned with this decision. The petitioner is also entitled to relief claimed at item no. (d) in the writ petition as we have already indicated above, that the provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 are not attracted to the unit of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.