JUDGMENT :- 1. Petitioner No.2 is an officer and Constituted Attorney of petitioner No.1. The reference in this judgment to the petitioner will be to petitioner No.1. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the Directorate of Industries and Joint Director of Industries. 2. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash a report dated 5th January, 2011, prepared by an expert committee and an order dated 4th March, 2011, passed by respondent No.3, cancelling a registration certificate issued in its favour. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from acting in furtherance of the said report and order. 3. Respondent No.1 Government of Maharashtra, with a view to encourage setting up IT units and infrastructure in the State from time to time announced the Maharashtra IT/ITES Policy. We are concerned in this writ petition with the Policy for the year 2009. 4. (A) Clause 3 of the Policy for the year 2009 enumerated the initiatives enabling creation of long term assets through an expanding talented pool, extensive IT infrastructure and a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship. The benefits which are enumerated in clause 3.1 included infrastructural and physical benefits such as additional FSI, the supply of power at industrial rates, exemption from stamp duty, reduced tax rates in certain cases, exemption from octroi / entry tax or other cess or tax levied in lieu thereof and the levy of property tax on IT-ITES units at par with residential rates. Relaxations were also granted under various enactments. (B) Clause 5, of the Police, insofar as it is relevant, reads as under :- 5. DEFINITIONS 5.1 In the context of this Policy, the Information Technology industry consists of IT Software, IT hardware, and IT Enabled services as defined below: ...... (c) IT enabled Services: IT enabled Services are defined as web enabled marketed services, and include Data Conversion, data mining, digitization, data entry, data processing, data warehousing Digitization of spoken material Information Services Packaged software support services. (C) The procedure for registration of IT units in Maharashtra was also prescribed. Clause 2.3 thereof provided as under :- 2.) What is the procedure for applying for LOI/Permanent Registration?......... 3. For IT Services (and ITES) units: At least 75% of the total annual turnover in value terms comprises of IT Services as indicated in Annexure `B'. (C) The procedure for registration of IT units in Maharashtra was also prescribed. Clause 2.3 thereof provided as under :- 2.) What is the procedure for applying for LOI/Permanent Registration?......... 3. For IT Services (and ITES) units: At least 75% of the total annual turnover in value terms comprises of IT Services as indicated in Annexure `B'. The relevant part of Annexure-B reads as under:- Annexure B The list of activities registrable as IT services and IT enabled services. 1....... 2. Data Processing 3. ....... 6. E-mail, data fax and internet fax services......... The list is illustrative and not exhaustive. 5. (A) The petitioner, accordingly, submitted its application for registration as an IT enabled Service/unit. Against item 7 of the form which pertained to Nature and details of services/software: the petitioner specified Telecom services. The form also lists the equipment in respect of the telecom services. The required affidavit in support of the application was filed in which the petitioner, inter-alia, stated that the annual turnover of the IT enabled Service shall always exceed 75% of the total annual turnover of the unit. At the relevant time, the petitioner forwarded certificates of its Chartered Accountant to establish the same. (B) The Government of Maharashtra, Office of the Regional Joint Directorate of Industries issued a certificate dated 18th March, 2009 by which the petitioner was registered as an IT enabled Service unit for telecom services. The certificate was valid for three years i.e. upto 18th March, 2012. 6. Two years later, by a letter dated 6th January, 2011, respondent No.2 Directorate of Industries requested the petitioner to submit the following information :- 1) Total turnover of M/s. Reliance Communications Ltd., for year 2008-2009. 2) Out of total turnover of M/s. Reliance Communications Ltd., turnover in Internet Service Providing (Communication channels like V-sat, Optical fiber no included) for year 23008-2009. The petitioner, by a letter dated 8th February, 2011, forwarded the information. 7. By the impugned order dated 4th March, 2011, respondent No.3 cancelled the said registration certificate dated 18th March, 2009, with retrospective effect. The petitioner was directed to surrender the same immediately. The petitioner, by a letter dated 8th February, 2011, forwarded the information. 7. By the impugned order dated 4th March, 2011, respondent No.3 cancelled the said registration certificate dated 18th March, 2009, with retrospective effect. The petitioner was directed to surrender the same immediately. The order records the following: The registration under the said Policy would be valid only if the turnover of the Internet service provider exceeds 75% of the total turnover; that the petitioner did not satisfy the condition and that the registration certificate issued to it for the activity of telecom services was, therefore, liable to be cancelled. The petitioner had made a claim to the power distribution company for obtaining the electric power rate applicable to industries instead of commercial establishments on the basis of the said registration which was denied. The petitioner, accordingly, filed Writ Petition No.5086 of 2010. By an order dated 14th October, 2010, the Division Bench of this Court granted time to enable the Government of Maharashtra to clarify its Policy as to whether the petitioner is to be treated as an industrial establishment or a commercial or IT enabled Service. The registration was accordingly examined by a committee of IT experts constituted by the Directorate of Industries which opined by the impugned note dated 5th January, 2011, that the petitioner was not entitled to registration as an IT enabled Service activity. 8. The petitioner was not heard before the impugned order dated 4th March, 2011, was passed. In fact, the petitioner was admittedly not even served with a show cause notice in that regard. The petitioner was not even informed that the respondents intended cancelling its registration certificate dated 18th March, 2009. 9. There is no doubt that the impugned order has drastic civil consequences upon the petitioner. The petitioner has, over the years, acted on the basis of and pursuant to the registration certificate. It is not even alleged that the petitioner suppressed any information or obtained registration fraudulently or even improperly. Even assuming that there was such an allegation, it would not justify the impugned order being passed in the absence of the petitioner being given a reasonable opportunity of meeting such allegations. Considering the nature of the impugned action it was necessary for the respondents to afford the petitioner, an opportunity of defending itself against the drastic action of cancellation of its registration certificate. 10. Considering the nature of the impugned action it was necessary for the respondents to afford the petitioner, an opportunity of defending itself against the drastic action of cancellation of its registration certificate. 10. The report/opinion of the committee of experts was not made pursuant to or in exercise of statutory powers or pursuant to the powers under any policy of 2009 or circular issued by the Government. Mr. Shinde, the learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, stated that the impugned report/opinion contained in the minutes of the meeting of the experts committee held on 5th January, 2011, is only the opinion of the committee was only advisory in nature and that the impugned order dated 4th March, 2011, was not based on the same. 11. It is only in view of the above statement regarding the nature of the report of experts committee that it is not necessary to quash the same although it was made/prepared without any notice to the petitioner. If it were otherwise, we would have had no hesitation in quashing the same as well. Even assuming that the respondents are entitled to proceed on the basis of what is stated in the note/opinion, the petitioners cannot possibly be bound by the same. Nor can any adjudicatory body or authority be bound by the same. It is only a factor which may be considered while dealing with the petitioner's case. Thus, in view of Mr. Shinde's statement that the report is only advisory in nature, it is not necessary to grant reliefs in respect thereof. 12. In the circumstances, the following order is passed : (i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a) insofar as the order of respondent No.3 dated 4th March, 2011, is concerned. (ii) The respondents are at liberty to pass a fresh order in respect of the registration certificate after serving upon the petitioner, a show cause notice and affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (iii) While deciding the petitioner's case, the respondents or any other authority shall be uninfluenced by the report of the expert committee. In the event of the respondents relying upon the same, the petitioner shall be granted an opportunity of dealing with the same in accordance with law. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.