JUDGMENT 1. The present writ petition is directed against the Annextures being Annexure-'M' dated 27th August, 1994 and Annexure-'P' dated 18th October,1994 The prayer which has been canvassed in this petition is for issuance of the writ of mandamus for cancellation of the Memo referred to hereinabove by a letter, vide Annexure-'M', appended to the writ petition and also for the decision of another Memo for the Order No 559 dated 18th October, 1994, (vide letter 'P•). From the first impugned Memo in question it appears that a permission, granted to the petitioner to bring and sell open-market rice and sugar vide office letter No 4232 dated. 12th December, 1990 (Annexure-'D'), was cancelled to check the influx of non-tribals into the tribal area. The office Memo as mentioned in the impugned Annexure vide letter 'M' to the writ petition is appended vide letter 'D' wherefrom it appears that the letter has been forwarded to the petitioner as early as on 12th December, 1990, informing him that he shall be at liberty to bring rice and sugar for sale at Car Nicobar at the fixed prices subject to the rules mentioned there under. The impugned Annexure, namely, the office letter to the writ petition dated 27th August, 1994, (Annexure-'M') does not make any mention as to the date from which it will come into effect. The Court has repeated its enquiries from the Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the Respondents to indicate as to the date from which the Memo in quested will be deemed to be in force. 2. Mr. A. S. Roy, Learned Advocate, appearing for the Respondents, is fair enough to suggest that the letter bears a particular date and nothing more is mentioned. It should be presumed that the impugned Memo is being given effect to from the date of issuance of the letter. The Court is perplexed to take notice of the same as bow the same can be given effect to prior to the date when the recipient of the same Memo was served with the same. It appears that the notice was sent and it should be presumed that the same would be received on a prospective date by the recipient but the said Memo has been given effect to from a retrospective effect prior to the date of the receipt by the recipient. It appears that the notice was sent and it should be presumed that the same would be received on a prospective date by the recipient but the said Memo has been given effect to from a retrospective effect prior to the date of the receipt by the recipient. This Memo appears to be penal nature as the permission to carryon one's means of livelihood has been attempted to be interfered. This is replete with the danger of far reaching consequence of causing the erosion of one's guarantee as provided in the Article 21 of the Constitution as prosecution of means of livelihood as associated with right of life as guaranteed under the Constitution. This Court cannot reconcile itself to the suggestion of giving a restrospective operation of a penal clause prior to the receipt of the despatch of the same and the same cannot be given effect to from that date when it is in the store house of a contemplated mood of the authorities. The said mood of cancellation on the face of it is not only procedurally defective but also is laconic in nature and the authorities are not expected to take such a harsh step with undue haste by Tinkering with rights to prosecute means of livelihood. This Court could have considered if the recipient would have been afforded with sufficient time either to dismantle his establishment or to make any representation thereof. Even from a homestead one cannot be evicted without notice and one's running shop cannot be expected to be dismantled nor he can a business be put to a grinding halt just by the contemplated move on the part of the executive. it is peculiar and strange that it was dated sometime in August 1994, and the permission was given as early as on 12.12.1990. A person was allowed to carryon with his business for a period of four years and during that period no whisper of objection was raised from the quarters of the Administration. If the Administration can afford to the down in deep slumber for such inordinate period and the moment the same as awakened the Court is not required to answer to tile clarion call of the wisdom of such executive. . 3. If the Administration can afford to the down in deep slumber for such inordinate period and the moment the same as awakened the Court is not required to answer to tile clarion call of the wisdom of such executive. . 3. The Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has repeatedly drawn the attention of this Court by referring to Clause 901 the conditions of the permission of cancellation of such licence and, according to his submission, unless the said conditions and fulfilled, the same cannot be terminated. His further contention is that there is a time period of 60 days contemplated under Clause 10 of the conditions of the notice and the impugned notice is not founded on the basis of such time period. Perhaps such time period is stipulated after keeping in view that a person having a commercial running establishment should be aforeded with reasonable time to dismantle the same. This Court instead of going into the question as to whether grounds exist or not and the manner of attempt to effect service of the impugned Memo is something which is in derogation not only of the conditions of such licence but the same is repugnant to the rudimentary principles of natural justice. The leviathan and/or its agents cannot be allowed to take refuge under the shelter of the technicalities of the statutes if they are accomplices of violation of principles of natural justice because the Court is a repository and protector even of the plea of natural justice of the citizens of this Country. The impugned Memo for the reasons of non-compliance of the procedure of giving any time and the notice was interwoven with an eloquient analogy that Ramayana was conceived by the authorities before Rani was born. This Court cannot sustain the plea of the Respondents and, as such, it sets aside the said Memo particularly being Annexed by letter 'M' to the writ petition dated 27th August, 1994. It is significant to mention in this context that there was a reference made in the writ petition that the Village Captain of the Nicobari tribals provided shelter/space for running the shop of the petitioner. The same has not been controverted with specific denial in any affidavit-in-reply. It is significant to mention in this context that there was a reference made in the writ petition that the Village Captain of the Nicobari tribals provided shelter/space for running the shop of the petitioner. The same has not been controverted with specific denial in any affidavit-in-reply. The conduct of Village Captain cannot be ignored as he has a vital role to play in the social structure of tribal life particularly in remote areas of the Nicobar Islands. One of the objective of national policies is to assimilate the tribes in the national main stream by retaining their identity and when the village Captain has all owed the petitioner being a non-tribal to run the establishment, the plea of the non-tribal executive bureaucrats should be taken with grain of salt. If the presence of a non-tribal is considered necessary by a Village Captain of a particular tribe and if he is allowed to indulge in some activities so that the necessities of the people can be met for a period spread over five years, the Court cannot shut its eyes to the background of that scenario. 4. Turning to the other impugned Memo which is dated 18th October, 1994 in Order No. 559 (Vide letter ‘P') from which it appears that the Deputy Commissioner, Nicobar District has cancelled the permit issued in favour of the petitioner earlier without assigning any reason. There should be some nexux: in between Letter ‘M' and letter 'P' appended to the writ petition and it is no use speculating as to whether the Administration is proceeding on the basis of any preconceived prejudice against the petitioner. Further it is made clear that this Court is not leaning in favour of the bona fides of the petitioner and this Court further feels that the proper fact in ding scrutiny should be made and proper show cause notice on legal advice should be there on available materials by reference to the same if any mischief is attempted to be made or not. The same cannot be made nugatory by a process just from start to finish in flagrant violation of legal procedure. This Court permits the Respondents to initiate proper course of action in accordance with the existing rules and regulations after compliance with the formalities of principles of natural justice on existing materials on record without any subjective preconceived prejudice. 5. Mr. This Court permits the Respondents to initiate proper course of action in accordance with the existing rules and regulations after compliance with the formalities of principles of natural justice on existing materials on record without any subjective preconceived prejudice. 5. Mr. Roy" Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents has referred to the Regulation 6 (I) of The Andaman & Nicobar Islands (Protection of aboriginal Tribal)' Regulations, 1966 and he has drawn attention of this Court to Regulation 6(t), Regulation 6(1) in a comprehensive ambit prohibits without previous sanction of the appropriate authority in favour of any non• tribal person to acquire any interest in any land situate in the reserved area or in any product or crop raised in such land except in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence. Here the petitioner, as it transpires from the evidence in the affidavit has been allowed to run his business from a structure allotted to him by the Chief Captain on his express consent and the said land in question seems to be in symbolical possession of the village Captain. The petitioner cannot have any independent interest in the land situate therein as he has nut independent standing on the site flowing from legal sanction. If a person is allowed to have a pass to make entry therein, then the prohibition about acquiring interest in any product must be modulated by the exigencies of the permission accorded to such person to be in that area. A person can only consume such crop which is necessary for his means of livelihood provided he is fortified by a permit to be in the area, Mr. Roy has strenuously tried to argue that the authorities which have conferred the right on the petitioner are not the requisite authorities under the statute nor can they have proper sanction under the statute" If that is so, the entire existence of the pets on is at stake and the Administration could have taken action against him. But the Administration have ventured to take the same into account by cancelling the same without assigning any reason whatsoever. The reason as promoted in course of argument could have been elucidated in the notice itself and that not having been done, any improvement made by the learned Advocate in his legal wisdom cannot cure the intrinsic infirmities in the modalities of the notice. Mr. The reason as promoted in course of argument could have been elucidated in the notice itself and that not having been done, any improvement made by the learned Advocate in his legal wisdom cannot cure the intrinsic infirmities in the modalities of the notice. Mr. Roy bas referred to a decision reported in (1) (1987) Vol. 1 SCC 13 in the case of Brij Mohan Parihar v. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors and be bas submitted that Mandamus cannot be issued to any State authority to enforce any agreement violating the statutory provisions. Here the prayers of the writ petition are modulated in a language which are by way of prohibitory' style from giving any effect and/or further effect either to a cancellation of the licence and/or withdrawal and/or revocation of the permit. Prayers are 'negative in nature. The cited decision may have applicability only with regard to prayers which are unambiguollsly positive in nature, namely, for enforcement of an, agreement. Here the entire proceeding is based on prayers for mandate from giving effect and/or purported effect to Memo dated 27th August, 1994 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Nicobars District, and Order No. 5.59 dated 18th August, 1994 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of the same District. As such the cited decision on the face of it is not based on the same ratio of law and it is clearly distinguishable. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed on contest and the impugned Annexures appended to the writ petition as noted above, are hereby set aside. It is, however, made clear that it will not prevent the appropriate authorities from initiating the course of action in accordance with law as indicated, above provided the materials are therein aid of such course of action. 7. The writ petition thus stands allowed subject to the above observations. Xerox copies of this order be made available to the respective parties at their own costs and expenses.