Judgment :- This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for and quash the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 19.12.2005. 2. The petitioner has stated that he is a licenced Reeler of Silk Yarn. A licence had been issued to the petitioner by the second respondent, in accordance with the relevant rules, relating to Control and Development of Sericulture. The petitioner is also the President of the Tamil Nadu State Mutiend Reelers Association. The petitioner has been carrying on his business for more than 21 years. While so, the second respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 19.12.2005, based on the statement made by one Amanullah, who had stated that the excess quantity of silk cocoons had been procured from the petitioner, contrary to the relevant rules. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, before the impugned order, dated 19.12.2005, had been passed by the second respondent, no opportunity had been given to the petitioner to show cause, as to how he was not liable for the alleged irregularity. The impugned order had been passed based only on the statement made by Amanullah, without such statement having been substantiated with further evidence. Therefore, the impugned order, dated 19.12.2005, passed by the second respondent, is contrary to the principles of natural justice and hence, it is liable to be set aside. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents denying the averments and allegations made by the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner had committed such irregularities on certain earlier occasions. Further, he had committed a similar irregularity, on 16.12.2005. He had procured 46.800 kilograms of coons from the Government Cocoon Market, Dharmapuri and he had sold it to one Amanullah, on 16.12.2005, as second sale, which is prohibited by the terms and conditions of the licence issued to the petitioner. Since, Amanullah had committed in writing that he had purchased 46.300 kilograms of cocoons from the petitioner, on 16.12.2005, the impugned order had been passed by the second respondent, suspending the licence of the petitioner. 5. Since, Amanullah had committed in writing that he had purchased 46.300 kilograms of cocoons from the petitioner, on 16.12.2005, the impugned order had been passed by the second respondent, suspending the licence of the petitioner. 5. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, it is seen that the petitioner had not been given an opportunity of hearing before the impugned order had been passed by the second respondent, on 19.12.2005. The impugned order had been passed, based only on the statement made by one Amanullah and without any further evidence having been adduced against the petitioner. 6. Thus, it is seen that the impugned order, dated 19.12.2005, had been passed contrary to the principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. However, it is made clear that it is open to the authorities concerned to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner, for the alleged irregularity said to have been committed by him, on 16.12.2005 and to pass appropriate orders, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected writ petition miscellaneous petition is closed.