JUDGMENT V.S. Sirpurkar, J. The appellant herein challenges the order passed in W.P.No.1077 of 1997, whereby the communication sent by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, dated 2.7.1996 has been quashed by a learned single Judge of this Court on the ground that the said communication amounted to a direction to cancel the licence for running a Rice Mill which was granted to Valarmathi the first respondent herein. A short summary of the facts would be necessary. The first respondent Valarmathi is a licencee. This licence has been awarded by the Village Panchayat Union for installing and running a rice mill. It seems that in pursuance of that licence, when the rice mill was being run the appellants herein made complaints against the said licensee to the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, the second respondent herein. It further seems that in pursuance of that complaint, the fourth respondent cancelled that licence, even without hearing the present first respondent. Therefore, a writ petition came to be filed which was registered as Writ Petition No.11713 of 1997. This writ petition was allowed and it was held by the single Judge of this Court that the said cancellation could not be effected unless the licensee, that is the present first respondent was given an opportunity of being heard. It seems that there were civil suits filed on behalf of the present appellant on the ground of nuisance allegedly created by the running of the rice mill and it also seems that the civil litigation is now over. We are not concerned with the question of nuisance herein. We are, however, concerned with the question of the grant of the continuance of the licence. Learned single Judge, as has already been pointed out, observed in his order in the following terms: “I am satisfied that the first respondent has erred in passing the impugned order without giving notice to the writ petitioner. Accordingly, I quash the impugned order dated 25.7.1991 leaving it open to the parties to prefer proper appeals if provided by the relevant situation like the District Municipalities Act or Tamil Nadu Public Health Act.” It seems that thereafter the present appellant filed an appeal before a Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench clarified that this order amounted to an open remand. It was explained by the Division bench that the questions could not be said to have been finally decided since the learned single Judge had passed an order which could be construed as one of open remand without deciding the issues between the parties. Now probably therefore treating this as an open remand, the second respondent Director issued a communication dated 2.7.1996. He has pointed out as many as about 12 defects and he has requested that a necessary show cause notice should be issued to the licensee, the first respondent herein. The concluding part of this letter is as follows: “The Commissioner, Veppur Panchayat Union is therefore requested to issue necessary notice to the owner of the rice mill as to why the licence cannot be cancelled and to proceed further as per the provisions in the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1958 and Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939.” 2. Taking this communication to be an order passed by the second respondent, the first respondent again filed a writ petition, which came to be registered as W.P.No.1077 of 1997. Learned single Judge heard this writ petition along with the Second Appeal which pertains to the question of nuisance which was being created because of the rice mill. We are not concerned here with the judgment of the civil court or the judgment of the learned single Judge in that Second Appeal. Learned single Judge has dismissed the Second Appeal. However, along with it he also disposed of the Writ Petition No.1077 of 1997 by a separate judgment. The present appeal pertains to the judgment in Writ Petition No.1077 of 1997 alone. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant points out that the communication impugned in that writ petition could not be said to be an order passed by the second respondent herein and under no circumstances could the observation therein be deemed to be the findings given by that authority. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant points out that the communication impugned in that writ petition could not be said to be an order passed by the second respondent herein and under no circumstances could the observation therein be deemed to be the findings given by that authority. Learned counsel argues that every time a show cause notice is given, the party to which such notice is required to be given a proper notice stating all the reasons and the facts which have to be dealt with by the said notice and therefore a communication was sent by the second respondent to the Commissioner, Town Panchayat only pointing out the points on which the show cause notice could be issued to the licensee, the first respondent herein. Learned counsel then points out that in fact in pursuance of the order, no show cause notice actually came to be issued and even before the Commissioner, Town Panchayat had decided to issue the show cause notice or actually issued the show cause notice, the licensee the first respondent rushed to this Court challenging the internal communication by one department to another which was neither an order nor a communication which could have had any adverse effect against the licensee the first respondent herein. 4. As against this, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent pointed out that the Director of Public Health was undoubtedly a higher authority, if not a superior authority to the Commissioner, Town Panchayat and therefore when such requests came to be made by the superior authority, it could be only noted by the Town Panchayat as an order and the Commissioner, Town Panchayat would have only felt himself bound by that request. Therefore, the so called communication is nothing else but an order. Learned single Judge has also proceeded only on this ground which will be clear from the observations made in his impugned judgment. Learned Judge proceeds to write “from the impugned order it is further seen that the Authorities have no other option, but to cancel the licence. It is a finding by the first respondent that the installations are against the approved plan, and even some of them are unauthorised. The effect of a direction given by a higher officer to a Commissioner of a Local Panchayat though he is not a subordinate, is well-known. It is a finding by the first respondent that the installations are against the approved plan, and even some of them are unauthorised. The effect of a direction given by a higher officer to a Commissioner of a Local Panchayat though he is not a subordinate, is well-known. The first respondent wanted immediate implementation of his direction. I find that the first respondent has entered a finding against the petitioner without hearing her, and, on that basis, directed the authorities to issue a show cause, and that too, only for cancellation of the licence.” 5. We are not in agreement with this inference of the learned single Judge. It will be seen that the Health Department was an independent and separate department from the said office of the Town Panchayat Union though there is undoubtedly some nexus between the two in so far as the maintenance of health conditions in the panchayat area is concerned. However, under no circumstances could this be said to be a direction to cancel the licence. We cannot read the same in the said communication which is not there. The communication unmistakably requests the Commissioner, Town Panchayat to issue a show cause notice and while issuing the same the reasons for which the show cause notice have only been displayed by the concerned authority, namely, respondent No.2 herein. We cannot hold this communication, therefore, to be a direction to cancel the licence. It is not that on the basis of this communication the show cause notice was actually issued. In fact, it was for the Commissioner, Town Panchayat to decide as to whether he was to issue a show cause or not. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that the Director of Public Health, the second respondent herein was constantly pressurising the Commissioner, Town Panchayat Union to issue such a show cause notice because he felt the non-issuance of this would have meant to be a contempt of court. We will not go into that aspect in this matter at all. It would be for the Town Panchayat Commissioner, to take a decision as to whether a show cause notice has to be issued or not and we are of the firm opinion that since the writ petition has been filed even before the show cause notice was issued, the said writ petition is premature in nature. It would be for the Town Panchayat Commissioner, to take a decision as to whether a show cause notice has to be issued or not and we are of the firm opinion that since the writ petition has been filed even before the show cause notice was issued, the said writ petition is premature in nature. We are therefore, left with no other alternative except to set aside the order of the learned single Judge. 7. However, we make it clear that in case the Commissioner, Town Panchayat Union decides to issue a show cause notice he may do so; but in deciding the matter after the issuance of show cause notice he shall not be required to be bound by the observations made in the communication dated 3.7.1996. He shall independently apply his mind and shall give an opportunity to all the parties, who are desirous to represent themselves. 8. With this direction we dispose of the writ appeal, but without any order as to costs. Disposed of.