JUDGMENT : Amareshwar Sahay, J. Heard the parties and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. 2. The petitioner, who is a manufacturer of weights and measures, has filed this writ petition challenging the notice issued to him, costumed in Annexure-5 dated 6.6.2006, whereby he was asked to submit his show cause within a period of 15 days as to why his license to manufacture of weights and measures be not cancelled, since during inspection of his premises on 22.5.2006, he was found to be manufacturing of weights and measures of higher denominations than .for which he was granted license, which is in violation of the terms of the license. 3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged inspection dated 22.5.2006 was made in presence of the Controller, Legal Metrology, Government of Jharkhand and therefore, he being connected with the inspection, could not have issued the notice to show cause to the petitioner for cancellation of the license, as he became a witness in the case. He further submits that in the notice to show cause (Annexure-5) it is mentioned that the petitioner was found in indulging himself in illegal manufacturing as well as doing illegal trade of those weights and measures, but from the inspection report, which has been annexed as Annexure-4, it does not show that there is such allegation that the petitioner was found doing illegal trade by selling or doing business of supply of weights and measures of higher denominations. He further submits that is order to manufacture of weights and measures of higher denominations i.e. 500 k.g. above 100 k.g. the petitioner was granted permission/license by the Central Government by issue of an order contained a Notification dated 4th May 2006 by the Ministry of Consumer, Food and Public Distribution, Government of India. Accordingly, he submits that neither he was illegally manufacturing the weights and measures without any valid license nor he was doing any illegal business of the said weights and measures within the country in violation of either of the terms of the license or permission/license by the Central Government. 4. Accordingly, he submits that neither he was illegally manufacturing the weights and measures without any valid license nor he was doing any illegal business of the said weights and measures within the country in violation of either of the terms of the license or permission/license by the Central Government. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State by relying upon the statements made in the counter affidavit, particularly in paragraphs - 10 to 13, submits that during inspection, the petitioner was found to be selling or doing business of supply of weights and measures of higher denominations, which he was not authorized to do, since the permission/license to manufacture of weights and measures of higher denominations was granted only for the purpose of export and not for selling those items within the country. 5. The statements made in the counter affidavit are contrary to the inspection report of the Inspector of weights and measures as contained in Annexure-4. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the relevant pleadings of the parties as well as the documents annexed with the writ petition and the counter affidavit, I find that in the inspection report dated 22.5.2006 no where it is mentioned that the petitioner was found doing business or selling or supplying of weights and measures of higher denominations and therefore, the allegation in that regard, a notice contained in Annexure-5 are not in conformity with the inspection report. It further appears that in the inspection report, it is mentioned that in course of inspection, the petitioner could not produce any document authorizing him to manufacture of weights and measures of higher denominations whereas from Annexure-13 i.e. a Notification dated 4th May 2006 issued by the Ministry of Consumer, Food and Public Distribution, Government of India, it appears that the petitioner was granter permission/license to manufacture the weights and measures for higher denominations for the purpose of export. 7. Therefore, in such a situation, I am of the view that the impugned notice as contained in Annexure-5 has been issued without verifying the facts. Further the impugned notice could not have been issued by the Controller, Legal Metrology, Government of Jharkhand, because as per the inspection report as well as the impugned notice he himself was a party to the inspection of the premises. 8. Further the impugned notice could not have been issued by the Controller, Legal Metrology, Government of Jharkhand, because as per the inspection report as well as the impugned notice he himself was a party to the inspection of the premises. 8. From the reasons stated herein above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice as contained in Annexure-5 as well as the consequential order passed thereto are hereby quashed. However, liberty is given to the concerned respondents that if they want to take any action against the petitioner for cancellation of his license, they may proceed in accordance with law after complying the principles of natural justice. 9. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed.