JUDGMENT A. R. TIWARI, J. - The petitioner is a partnership firm. It carries on the business of manufacturing, producing and trading of veterinary drugs and fine organic and inorganic chemicals as also allied products. The unit is established in village Narval, Industrial Area, Sanver Road, Sector-E, Indore (annexure P1). The Department of Industries granted provisional registration on March 3, 1989 (annexure P2) which was later converted into permanent registration on March 26, 1992 (annexure P3). As a new industrial unit, the petitioners claimed to enjoy certain benefits under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, as also the Central sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioners, therefore, applied for grant of eligibility certificate, to avail of tax concession and exemptions in terms of the scheme contained in the notification of October 16, 1986 (annexure P10). The respondent No. 1 granted provisional certificate (annexure P11) on being certified about the eligibility of the petitioners to get benefit of the incentive schemes. The matter was placed before the District Industries Centre on January 19, 1993, which rejected the claim of the petitioners on the erroneous appreciation of clause XIII(E) of the notification. The District Industries Centre addressed the letter dated March 16, 1993 to the petitioners (annexure P14) conveying that the petitioners were disentitled in terms of clause XIII(E) of the notification dated October 16, 1986. It was stated that respondent No. 2, the District Level Committee, has rejected the case of the petitioners. Consequent upon this order the eligibility certificate dated June 26, 1992 was cancelled. Aggrieved by order, annexure P14, the petitioners have filed this petition under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing annexure P14 and appropriate directions against the respondents. 2. The respondents have opposed the petition by filing reply to the show cause notice. 3. I have heard both sides. The Division Bench of this Court passed the order dated April 7, 1993, staying the operation of the order dated March 29, 1993, passed by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Indore and thereby revived the provisional eligibility certificate. 4. The order, annexure P14, is one line order and does not disclose the reasons on which it was passed. Order dated March 29, 1993 is an order based on the decision taken by the District Level Committee on January 19, 1993 as is referred in annexure P14. 5. 4. The order, annexure P14, is one line order and does not disclose the reasons on which it was passed. Order dated March 29, 1993 is an order based on the decision taken by the District Level Committee on January 19, 1993 as is referred in annexure P14. 5. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners were granted eligibility certificate on June 26, 1992 which suffered mortality by order dated March 29, 1993 on the basis of the decision of the District Level Committee on January 19, 1993 and the letter in respect thereto issued on March 16, 1993. It is also an undisputed fact that the rejection is without disclosure of reasons and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In AIR 1990 SC 1984 (S. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India) it is laid down that administrative action must be supported by reasons as is clear from the following lines : "In view of the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules." 6. Undisputedly the question of grant or refusal of eligibility certificate depends on examination of relevant materials and this aspect should be better left to the competent authorities. However, when the eligibility certificate is refused or cancelled retrospectively, it naturally consigns the holder of such eligibility certificate to extra burden and inconvenience. When stakes are so high, it is necessary that the competent authority should have heard the petitioners in that behalf. 7. In AIR 1989 SC 997 (State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh) it is held as under : "The show cause notice itself is an impalpable congeries of suspicions and fears of relevant or irrelevant matter and has included some trivia. On a matter of such importance where the stakes are heavy for the lessees who claim to have made large investments on the project and where a number of grounds require the determination of factual matters of some complexity, the statutory authority should, in the facts of this case, have afforded a personal hearing to the lessees." 8. In the result I do not deem it proper to go into the merits of the matter. Instead I direct respondent Nos. In the result I do not deem it proper to go into the merits of the matter. Instead I direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to hear the petitioner in this regard and pass appropriate orders with reasons within a period of one month from today. Till passing of a fresh order as directed, the interim, order passed by this Court on April 7, 1993, shall continue to be operative. Annexure P14 is quashed. The petition is thus finally disposed of with directions as above, but without any order as to costs. Writ petition disposed of.