ORDER : K.B.K. Vasuri, J. On consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The writ petition is filed against the order of the Respondent in his Proceedings No. C/1833/2008 dated 29.9.2008, in and by which the Respondent has called upon the Petitioner, the show cause notice as to why he should not prosecuted for certain irregularities contravening relevant provision of Factories Act 1948. 3. The brief facts which are relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition are as follows. The Petitioner is under the name and style of DHL Express (I) Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at Chennai and is carrying on the business of International Courier which is according to the Petitioner though commercial in nature does not involve any manufacturing process and is only covered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops & Establishment Act, 1947. While so, the Petitioner is served with show cause notices by the Respondent which are purported to be under the Factories Act, 1948 and the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, 1950 and the same is sent along with inspection report, alleging certain irregularities said to be noticed in the Petitioner's business center, which are according to the Respondent in contravention of the Factories Act and Rules. The Petitioner was in the same notice called upon to explain as to why he should not be prosecuted for the irregularities noticed at the time of inspection as detailed in the notice dated 16.9.2008 as referred above. The writ Petitioner duly replied the same on 24.9.2008, in which the Petitioner has set forth the particulars and reasons as to how the establishment does not come within the purview of the Factories Act In pursuance of which, is the order passed by the Respondent in his proceedings No. C/1833/2008 dated 29.9.2008, which is now impugned herein. 4. The writ Petitioner has challenged the validity and enforceability of the said order mainly on the ground that it is in violation of principles of natural justice and suffers for want of due opportunity to the Petitioner of being heard. This Court is of the reasonable view that the contention as raised by the Petitioner is well justified. 4. The writ Petitioner has challenged the validity and enforceability of the said order mainly on the ground that it is in violation of principles of natural justice and suffers for want of due opportunity to the Petitioner of being heard. This Court is of the reasonable view that the contention as raised by the Petitioner is well justified. Though the Petitioner has sent his detailed explanation on 24.9.2008, the Respondent has rejected the same and passed the impugned order directing the Petitioner to comply with the earlier show cause notice by rectifying the defects mentioned therein. The Respondent has not at all dealt with and discussed the serious objection raised by the Petitioner. The impugned order is to that extent non-speaking as no reason is given as to why and how the objections raised by the Petitioner are not acceptable and as to how the activity carried on by the Petitioner is manufacturing in nature so as to bring the same within the purview of Factories Act. The perusal of the impugned order shows that there is totally non-application of mind and on that ground alone the order is legally bad and is unsustainable. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has also cited the earlier judgment of our High Court reported in Hafeez Motor Transport Vs. Deputy Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, (2001) 1 LLJ 1454 , wherein our High Court has under similar circumstances, set aside the impugned order on the ground or violation c(sic) statutory provisions as well as principles of natural justice and is pleased to remand the matter to the Respondent for passing fresh order after giving adequate opportunity to the Petitioner. In the light of the same the order of the Respondent impugned herein is also liable to be quashed and the matter is to be remitted back to the Respondent for fresh disposal. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Respondent dated 29.9.2008 in his proceedings No. C/1833/2008 is set aside and the Respondent is directed to dispose of the matter afresh after duly considering the objection of the Petitioner dated 24.9.2008 on merits and after giving personal hearing to the Petitioner. The whole exercise shall be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.