Judgment :- The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents to grant a quota of 35 bags (50 kgs. each) of Standard Grade Paraffin (Type II), per month along with the arrears of wax from January, 1990. 2. The petitioner is a small scale industrial unit engaged in the manufacture of candles paraffin wax. It seems that industry was started in 1983. The quota for the industry was 35 bags of paraffin wax per month. In 1989 November, an inspection have been made by the Joint Director of Chemicals and based on that, a show-cause was issued to the petitioner on 29.12.1989 directing him to show cause why the quota bags of wax should not be cancelled. It was received by the petitioner on 8.1.1990. petitioner submitted his reply stating that he was using the entire wax allotted purpose of manufacturing candles and had sold them to various persons as found records maintained by the petitioner. However, to the surprise of the petitioner, supply wax was stopped from January, 1990. The petitioner started making representations. August, 1990, the 1st respondent addressed a communication to the petitioner him that an ad hoc allotment of 5 bags of wax per month for three months upto July, had been considered, and the petitioner was granted 5 bags of wax per month for May, and July, 1990. The 1st respondent issued proceedings on 22.10.1990 stating that decided to fix the quota for the petitioner as 10 bags of paraffin wax per month. It is by the petitioner that no reason has been given for reducing the quota from 35 bags bags per month. It is also alleged that there is no valid justification for the quota the respondent from 1990 and the action of the respondents is arbitrary, besides violative of the principles of natural justice. It is also alleged in the affidavit of the that the copy of the report of the 2nd respondent has not been given and even the order passed on the show-cause notice has not been given to the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that rejection of the quota for the petitioner cannot be sustained and as such, he is entitled the original quota of 35 bags per month. 3. Notice of motion has been ordered by me on 12.12.1990. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appears for the respondents. The petitioner alleges that rejection of the quota for the petitioner cannot be sustained and as such, he is entitled the original quota of 35 bags per month. 3. Notice of motion has been ordered by me on 12.12.1990. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appears for the respondents. On instructions he states that paraffin wax is a scarce raw material governed by Paraffin Wax (Supply, Distribution and Price Fixation) Order, 1972 and it comes under the Essential Commodities Act. According to the order, the Director of Industries and Commerce can suspend or or refuse the allotment to paraffin wax allottees, who breach the rules and regulations. Learned Additional Government Pleader states that a show cause notice was issued as by the petitioner and as the explanation of the unit was not convincing, the quota reduced. The learned Additional Government Pleader further states that on representation of the unit, an ad hoc quota was given to the petitioner and with effect October, 1990, it was enhanced to 10 bags per month. 5. The facts are not now in dispute. An inspection was made on 29.12.1989, a show notice was issued and a reply thereto was given by the petitioner is all not disputed by respondents. However, it is surprising to note that no order with reasons seems to been passed and communicated to the petitioner giving the reason why the quota reduced. It is also seen in the instructions given to the learned Additional Government Pleader that the report sent by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Tiruchi, cannot be produced as it relates to correspondence within the Department and confidential nature. I think that this itself is sufficient for the issue of a writ as prayed There cannot be a confidential report or correspondence in these days and when petitioner has been issued a show-cause notice and when he has submitted his reply, incumbent upon the respondents to give a copy of the report and ask for explanation the petitioner. Admittedly it has not been done as could be seen from the instructions to the learned Additional Government Pleader. It is not denied that the petitioner was 35 bags per month earlier and it has been reduced to 10 bags now. It has been done, may view, arbitrarily as contended rightly by Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, learned counsel the petitioner. 6. Admittedly it has not been done as could be seen from the instructions to the learned Additional Government Pleader. It is not denied that the petitioner was 35 bags per month earlier and it has been reduced to 10 bags now. It has been done, may view, arbitrarily as contended rightly by Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, learned counsel the petitioner. 6. In Neelima Misra v. Harinder Knur Paintal, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1402, the Supreme Court considered the concept of fairness in administrative acts. The Supreme Court observed page 1409 as follows: "An administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently the rule expressed in the Latin Maxim audi alteram partem". It means that the decision maker should afford to any party to a dispute an opportunity to present-his case. A number of authorities are on this point and we will not travel over the field of authorities. What is now not in dispute is that the person concerned must be informed of the against him and the evidence in support thereof and must be given a fair opportunity meet the case before an adverse decision is taken." It is very clear from the instructions given to the learned Additional Government Pleader and from the arguments advanced him that the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court has not been followed in this case. 7. In view of that, this writ petition will stand allowed. The petitioner is entitled to the quota of 35 bags (50 kg each) of Standard Grade Paraffin Wax (Type II) per month January, 1990. The respondents are directed to calculate the balance of quota to be given the petitioner and release the quota on or before 31.10.1991. If the respondents want initiate any action against the petitioner for any violation, it is open to them to do so, giving opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. No costs. Petition allowed.