Judgment :- This Writ Petition is directed against the order passed by the District Supply Officer, Medak at Sangareddy on 18.01.2012, suspending the authorization of the writ petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri C. Pratap Reddy and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. It is pointed out that upon credible information being received that the owner of M/s Sangameshwara Binny Modern Rice Mill of Zaheerabad is loading PDS rice unauthorizedly in his rice mill premises, the Tahsildar, Zaheerabad and Revenue Inspector have undertaken inspection of the premises of the writ petitioner on 28.12.2011 at about 02.30 a.m. They have noticed that rice is being unloaded from a truck bearing Registration No. AP 16W 9769. The owner explained that the rice purchased by them at Hyderabad is being unloaded in their premises, but however, the Tahsildar found that the rice that is being unloaded is meant for public distribution. Accordingly, proceedings have been drawn seizing the stock of various varieties of rice available, to the order of Rs.67,75,250/- and 195 quintals of PDS rice was handed over to Mandal Level Stockists point in-charge of Zaheerabad and other varieties of rice were handed to M/s Nandi Binny Para Boiled Rice Mill, Nyalkal and the seized truck was handed over to the Station House Officer, Zaheerabad. In view of the report received by the District Supply Officer, the present impugned order has been passed by him suspending with immediate effect the Form-B licence issued in favour of the writ petitioner. Hence, this Writ Petition is instituted. 4. It will be appropriate to notice that in terms of Sections 3 and 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and with the prior concurrence of the Government of India, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh framed the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008. Hence, these Regulations have statutory backing and enforceability. The expressions “scheduled commodities” and “food grains” are defined in Clauses 2 D and G respectively. Similarly, the expressions “rice mill” and “rice miller” are defined in Clauses H and I. The expression of “dealer” as defined in Clause 2K encompasses any person engaged in the business of purchase, movement, sale, supply, distribution or storage for sale of any of the scheduled commodities specified. Clause 7 of the aforementioned Order dealt with cancellation or suspension of a licence. Clause 7 of the aforementioned Order dealt with cancellation or suspension of a licence. Sub-clause (1) thereof will have some bearing upon the enquiry embarked upon in this case and hence, it would be appropriate to extract the same herein below: “No holder of a licence issued under this Order or his agent or servant or any person acting on his behalf shall contravene any of the terms or conditions of the licence, and if any such holder or his agent or servant or any person acting on his behalf contravenes any of the said terms or conditions, then without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him, his licence may be cancelled or suspended by an order in writing of the Licensing Authority. Provided that no order shall be made under this clause unless the licensee has been given reasonable opportunity of stating his case and being heard in person against the proposed cancellation or suspension. Provided further that if any dealer possessing a licence for more than one scheduled commodity contravenes any of the conditions of this Order in respect of one scheduled commodity the licence shall be suspended or cancelled in respect of that commodity only duly following the procedure and in such cases, fresh licence for the remaining period in respect of remaining commodity shall be issued by the Licensing Authority.” 5. From a perusal of sub-clause (1) of Clause 7, it becomes eminently clear that if a holder of a licence issued under the said Order contravenes any of the terms or conditions, subject to which the licence was issued, his licence may be cancelled or suspended by an order passed, in writing, by the Licensing Authority. However, most importantly, the exercise of power of cancellation or suspension is hedged by the condition that no such order shall be passed unless the licensee has been given reasonable opportunity of stating his case and being heard in person against the proposed cancellation or suspension. It is thus manifestly clear that the regulation-making authority has ensured that principles of natural justice are adequately complied with by the Licensing Authority before he undertakes the action of either suspension or cancellation of the licence accorded under the said Order. 6. It is a pity that the impugned order has been passed by a District Supply Officer. It is thus manifestly clear that the regulation-making authority has ensured that principles of natural justice are adequately complied with by the Licensing Authority before he undertakes the action of either suspension or cancellation of the licence accorded under the said Order. 6. It is a pity that the impugned order has been passed by a District Supply Officer. However, he has not chosen to put the writ petitioner on notice nor did he consider it appropriate to hear the writ petitioner before the impugned order was passed on 18.01.2012. It will be difficult for me to believe that a District Supply Officer would not be knowing this basic and elementary requirement before he considered it appropriate to exercise the power. The impugned order leaves behind an uncomfortable feeling in my mind that it has been purposefully passed. Orders of this nature which are passed in gross violation of the requirements of Clause 7 of the Order are bound to be challenged by the offender and Courts are bound to declare any such proceeding as illegal. That would be to the benefit of the offender. Therefore, designedly, the District Supply Officer has preferred to act in such a manner that his action prima facie will be of help to an offender than implement a provision, which will enure to the benefit of the State. The action of the District Supply Officer, Medak, in the instant case, is hardly justifiable. I have no option now than to set aside the proceedings, dated 18.01.2012 passed by the District Supply Officer, Medak at Sangareddy, but however, the matter should not stop there. The District Collector, Medak and the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, though are not impleaded to this Writ Petition, are directed to take necessary action against the District Supply Officer, Medak at Sangareddy for the blatant illegality indulged in by him in passing the impugned order. Every public servant, who has been entrusted with the job of performing duties, which are quasi-judicial in nature, had to be accountable for what all he has done or he has not done. Strict adherence to the legal principles is the only way that the desired result of the statute or rule or regulation can be attained. 7. Every public servant, who has been entrusted with the job of performing duties, which are quasi-judicial in nature, had to be accountable for what all he has done or he has not done. Strict adherence to the legal principles is the only way that the desired result of the statute or rule or regulation can be attained. 7. Therefore, the District Collector, Medak and Commissioner of Civil Supplies must take appropriate action in the matter and lodge a report with the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court as to the action taken against the District Supply Officer, Medak within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Since the impugned order has been set aside for sheer violation of the principles of natural justice, as enshrined in the first proviso to sub-clause (1) of Clause 7 of the Order, I must necessarily leave it open to the respondents to proceed against the writ petitioner strictly in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.