Judgment: Dilip B. Bhosale, J. : In W.P. No.45437/2011 the petitioner -hospital has impugned the order dated 24.11.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent in their appeal, bearing No. HFW 304 FPR 2011, confirming the order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 12.9.2011, whereby the Certificate of Registration/Licence issued by the Government of Karnataka in February, 2012, under The Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (for short `the Act') has been cancelled. The petitioner -hospital was granted Certificate of Registration dated 25.3.2010, in Form 12 appended to The Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 1995 (for short ‘the Rules’), for performing the transplantation of kidney, liver and homograft (permitted only usage). 2. The order dated 12th Sept. 2011 was issued for the reasons recorded in the proceedings of the meeting of the Appropriate Authority held on 16.8.2011. The action for cancellation of the Registration Certificate against the petitioner - hospital, was initiated by the Appropriate Authority as provided for under Section 16 of the Act on the complaint made by respondent no.4 in the first petition and the petitioner in the second petition i.e. W.P.12721-724/12 (for short `the complainant'). The complainant's wife Mrs. Seema Rai died on 6.5.2010, following the kidney and pancreas transplantation at the petitioner - hospital. 3. The principal grievance of the complainant, before this Court, is that the petitioner hospital did not have Certificate of Registration in form no.12 of the Rules to perform Transplantation of Pancreas and that it was not disclosed by the petitioner - hospital to the complainant and/or his wife and other family members. It was submitted on behalf of the complainant that the petitioner -hospital/their doctors were not only negligent while performing the surgery for transplantation of kidney and pancreas but they undertook the transplantation of pancreas without having licence for the same. 4. The complaint was made on 2.6.2010 to the Appropriate Authority under Section 16 of the Act. The complaint was dealt with by the Appropriate Authority and vide its order dated 22.12.2010 disposed it of, holding that it had not been conclusively proved that the death of the complainant's wife -Smt. Seema Rai occurred on account of negligence and in violation of the prescribed procedure under Sections 9 & 12 of the Act. The complaint was dealt with by the Appropriate Authority and vide its order dated 22.12.2010 disposed it of, holding that it had not been conclusively proved that the death of the complainant's wife -Smt. Seema Rai occurred on account of negligence and in violation of the prescribed procedure under Sections 9 & 12 of the Act. It appears that the petitioner had also approached the Karnataka Medical Council for seeking cancellation of the licence/registration of the doctors who performed the operation. That complaint was also rejected vide reasoned order dated 2.6.2011, holding that there was no negligence or violation of the code of medical ethics by Dr. Ranjana Sridhar and Dr. Ramachandra Thyagarajan, and that they were exonerated. By the same order, dated 2.6.2011, the petitioner -hospital was administered a warning to follow the instructions of the Appropriate Authority under the Act and to take measures to control post operation infection and submit a compliance report to the Karnataka Medical Council within 20 days from the date of the order. 5. The complainant thereafter, approached the Karnataka Lokayukta against Mr. D.N. Nayak, IAS Commissioner, Health & Family Welfare and Ayush Services and Chairman, Appropriate Authority under the Act. He along with the affidavit in Form No.II (see Rule 4 (1) of The Karnataka Lokayukta Rules, 1985 also submitted the complaint in Form No.1 before the Lokayukta for Karnataka. In column no.3 of the Form No.1, which provides for stating brief facts relating to the action complained of, the complaint mentioned as under: "Under the provisions of Section 13 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, I submitted a complaint dated 9th November 2010 alleging violating of Sections 9 and 12 of the aforesaid Act by two doctors of Fortis Hospital Dr. Rajanna Sreedhara and Dr. Ramacharan Thiagarajan. The complaint is of a serious nature since there has been loss of life (my wife) and investigation can prevent that in future and prevent unauthorized allocation of human organs. The enquiry report dated 22nd December 2010 is perverted and has ignored evidence provided" In the last column of the complaint in form No.1, the complainant made the following prayer: "My prayer is therefore to set aside the perverted findings of the Government Enquiry Report. The enquiry report dated 22nd December 2010 is perverted and has ignored evidence provided" In the last column of the complaint in form No.1, the complainant made the following prayer: "My prayer is therefore to set aside the perverted findings of the Government Enquiry Report. Also, please issue directions to Government of Karnataka to initiate appropriate action as provided in the Transplantation of Human Organ Act having regard to the gravity of the complaint and the evidence furnished". Thus from perusal of the complaint made to the Lokayukta it appears to me that it was made against the Commissioner, Health and Family Welfare and not against the petitioner - hospital. The petitioner - hospital was not party to the complaint. 6. It is on the basis of the complaint made to the Lokayukta, a Technical Committee consisting of 3 doctors was constituted by the Lokayukta. The said Committee enquired into the grievance of the complainant in depth and submitted its report to the Lokayukta on 20th of May, 2011. The report of the Lokayukta is also on record which is dated 9.9.2011. It appears that on the basis of the report of Technical Committee constituted by the Lokayukta, the Appropriate Authority reopened the complaint made by the complainant and issued fresh show cause notice dated 13/14.7.2011 as provided for under sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act to the petitioner -hospital. In the show cause notice, a reference to the three documents was made including Lokayukta report at serial no.2. However, no further reference was made in the body of show cause notice either to the Lokayukta Report or to the report of the Technical Committee dated 20.5.2011. As a matter of fact, on the date of issuance of the show cause notice, the report of Lokayukta was not even submitted to the Government. The Lokayukta submitted its report to the Government on 9.9.2011. According to the learned counsel for the complainant the reference to the Lokayukta report in the show cause notice was in fact to the report of Technical Committee dated 20th of May, 2011. 7. The petitioner - hospital replied to the show cause notice and forwarded the same with the covering letter dated 25.11.2011. In the covering letter, they mentioned that if the Commissioner (i.e. Appropriate Authority) required any further clarification, it should not hesitate to contact them. 7. The petitioner - hospital replied to the show cause notice and forwarded the same with the covering letter dated 25.11.2011. In the covering letter, they mentioned that if the Commissioner (i.e. Appropriate Authority) required any further clarification, it should not hesitate to contact them. It is on the basis of the reply given by the petitioners to the show cause notice, the Appropriate Authority in its meeting held on 16.8.2011, for the reasons recorded in the proceedings, recommended cancellation of the Certificate of Registration issued to the petitioner -hospital dated 25.3.2010. On the basis of the recommendation, the Chairman -Appropriate Authority under the Act issued official memorandum/order dated 12th Sept. 2011, whereby they cancelled the licence granted to M/s.Fortis Hospital, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore (Certificate No. MDM 26/09-10 dated 25.3.2010) exercising its powers under section 16 (2) of the Act. 8. The order dated 12.9.2011 was challenged by the petitioner in an appeal before the appellate authority and the Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare Dept., bearing Appeal No. HFW 304 FBR 2011. The appeal was filed under section 17 of the Act. The appellate authority rejected the appeal vide order dated 24.11.2011 and confirmed the order dated 12.9.2011 passed by the Appropriate Authority canceling the licence granted to the petitioner - hospital. 9. It is against this backdrop the petitioner -hospital filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 12.9.2011 passed by the Appropriate Authority and the order dated 24.11.2011 passed by the appellate authority. 10. In the second petition (W.P.Nos.12721-24/2012) the complainant has challenged the findings recorded by the Appropriate Authority in its order, which is confirmed by the appellate authority, in respect of "informed sanction" under section 12 of the Act. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. Mr. Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner -hospital, at the outset, invited my attention to the impugned orders, more particularly, the proceedings of the meeting of the Appropriate Authority held on 16.8.11 and submitted that the Appropriate Authority as well as the appellate authority have passed a drastic order of canceling the registration certificate without affording proper opportunity to the petitioner to meet the allegations against them and/or following the principles of natural justice. After inviting my attention to the proceedings of the meeting held on 16.8.11, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the order of the Appropriate Authority is based on the report dated 20.5.11 of the Technical Committee constituted by the Lokayukta and on the basis of the legal opinion obtained by them from the National Law School of Indian University (for short "the law school"). He submitted that neither the report of the Technical Committee dated 20.5.11 nor the legal opinion obtained from the law school was supplied to the petitioner - hospital along with the show cause notice. In the show cause notice, reference was made to the Lokayukta report without mentioning the date thereof. In the body of the show cause notice, he submitted, that there is no whisper about the report dated 20.5.11. As a matter of fact, he submitted, the report dated 20.5.11 was not that of the Lokayukta but it was of the Technical Committee consisting of three doctors constituted by the Lokayukta. Similarly, he submitted that the legal opinion given by the law school was also not referred to in the show cause notice and therefore, the petitioner - hospital did not get sufficient and proper opportunity to meet the allegations against them. He then invited my attention to Section 16 of the Act and submitted that the though sub- section (2) thereof provides for an opportunity of being heard to the hospital, no such opportunity was afforded and on this ground alone the order of the Appropriate Authority and so also of the appellate authority deserves to be set aside. He also invited my attention to several documents placed on record to contend that the petitioner - hospital could not meet the case against them as reflected in the report of the Technical Committee dated 20.5.2011. Lastly, he submitted till the impugned order was issued and copy of the proceedings of the meeting of the Appropriate Authority held on 16.8.2011 were made available to the petitioner -hospital, they even did not know that the Appropriate Authority re-opened the case on the basis of the report of the Technical Committee and that they were to rely on the said report for passing the impugned order. He also submitted that re-opening of the case/complaint against the petitioner - hospital on the basis of report of the Technical Committee was not only wrong and improper but it was illegal. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Nagendra Dev learned counsel for respondent no.4 complainant in reply to the contentions urged by the Mr. Nagesh, Senior Advocate for the petitioner, invited my attention, to the reply given by the petitioner - hospital, to the show cause notice with the covering letter dated 25.7.11 and submitted that from the reply to the show cause notice, it is clear, that the report of the Technical Committee was with the petitioner - hospital and it cannot be stated that they did not know about the report and therefore, they could not meet the case against them. The relevant paragraph in the reply to which my attention was invited by Mr. Narendra Dev in support of his contention reads thus: "In this connection, we would like to submit precedence to this situation: Narayana Hrudayalaya Hospital conducted a combined Liver + Pancreas transplant in October 2008. This was extensively reported in the press, a copy of the coverage in TOI dated Nov 16, 2008 is part of this reply vide Annexure-10. However, the same Lakayukta report also mentions that Narayana Hrudayalaya Hospital has a license for Kidney and Liver transplantation only. There is no mention of Pancreas in their certificate as well. Although the Lokayukta report claims that registration is required for all individual organs, the Authority does not have clear guidelines on this matter and there is a lack of consistency in the interpretation of the rules." 13. Thus, in short, he submitted that it cannot be stated that the report dated 20.5.11 was not with the petitioner - hospital and that they did not have an opportunity to meet the findings recorded against them by the Technical Committee. He then fairly conceded that the legal opinion of the law school was not supplied to the petitioner hospital along with the show cause notice. He also fairly admitted that the impugned orders are based on the report dated 20.5.11 and the legal opinion of the law school. 14. Insofar as personal hearing is concerned, he placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in STATE BANK OF INDA & ORS. He also fairly admitted that the impugned orders are based on the report dated 20.5.11 and the legal opinion of the law school. 14. Insofar as personal hearing is concerned, he placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in STATE BANK OF INDA & ORS. -VS-LUTHER KONDHPAN (1999) 9 SCC 268 ; UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER -vs- JESUS SALES CORPORATION (1996) 4 SCC 69 ; and in A.K.GOPALA -vs-STATE OF MADRAS (AIR (37) 1950 SC 27 to contend that when principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard before an adverse order is passed on any appeal/application, it does not, in all circumstances, mean a personal hearing. He submitted that the petitioner -hospital were given show cause notice, and to the show cause notice they had submitted detailed reply and in view thereof, it cannot be stated that the principles of natural justice were not observed by the Appropriate Authority before passing the order dated 12.9.11, cancelling the registration certificate/licence issued to the petitioner - hospital. He then submitted that the doctors/hospital, which performed surgery on his wife were not only negligent but they were negligent and irresponsible in undertaking transplantation of pancreas without having Registration Certificate/licence for its transplantation. 15. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 also invited my attention to few documents and the provisions of the Act and the Rules to make his submissions on merits. However, I made it clear to the learned counsel that since I am convinced that proper opportunity was not given to the petitioner -hospital to meet the case against them, I am not inclined to deal with merits of the case, viz. whether the Registration Certificate in respect of the transplantation of liver also would include the other abdominal organs, including pancreas. That was not even the case earlier and even before the Lokayukta and hence I am not dealing with this aspect at all and leaving it to the Appropriate Authority, which consists of experts, to express its opinion and/or take appropriate decision while deciding the case afresh. I now proceed to record my reasons for setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matter to the Appropriate Authority for considering the complaint of the petitioner afresh keeping the issue open whether they can re-open the case to be raised and considered by them while dealing with the complaint fresh. 16. I now proceed to record my reasons for setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matter to the Appropriate Authority for considering the complaint of the petitioner afresh keeping the issue open whether they can re-open the case to be raised and considered by them while dealing with the complaint fresh. 16. The impugned order dated 12.9.11 was issued by the Chairman, Appropriate Authority, under the Act. The order dated 12.9.2011 reads thus: "As per the proceedings of the Appropriate Authority, the licence granted to M/s. Fortis Hospital, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore (Certificate No.MDM/26/09-10 dated 25.3.2010) is hereby cancelled under section 16(2) of the Transplantation of Human organs Act, 1994." (emphasis supplied) 17. There is no dispute that the reasons for issuing the order dated 12.9.11 are recorded by the Appropriate Authority in the proceedings of the meeting held on 16.8.11. It is apparent and also not disputed by learned counsel for the parties that the reasons recorded by the Appropriate Authority in the proceedings of their meeting held on 16.8.2011 are based only on the report of the Technical Committee dated 20.5.2011 and the legal opinion of the law school. No reasons, in the proceedings were recorded as to why they re-opened the case. Even the show cause notice is silent and does not speak anything about the report of the Technical Committee and the opinion expressed therein against the petitioner - hospital. It is obvious that the report of the Technical Committee influenced the Appropriate Authority to re-open the case against the petitioner - hospital and cancel the licence solely on the basis of the findings/conclusions recorded by the Committee. It is clear from the concluding paragraph in the proceedings of the meeting dated 16.8.2011 that the licence has been cancelled mainly on the ground that permission to conduct transplantation of liver would not include other abdominal organs such as pancreas. 18. Insofar as the "informed sanction" is concerned, legal opinion was sought from the law school and on the basis thereof, it recorded its finding on the issue of "informed sanction". In respect of "infection control", the Appropriate Authority in the proceedings, recorded that it did not find that the hospital had maintained appropriate post-operative infection control measures which is a mandatory requirement to be followed in the cases of transplantation. In respect of "infection control", the Appropriate Authority in the proceedings, recorded that it did not find that the hospital had maintained appropriate post-operative infection control measures which is a mandatory requirement to be followed in the cases of transplantation. In the appeal, the findings recorded by the Appropriate Authority in the proceedings of the meeting dated 16.8.11 were confirmed. 19. Having regard to the orders impugned in the present writ petition and having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, in the light of the material produced on record, at the outset, I observe that the impugned action of canceling the certificate of registration/licence for performing human organs transplantation surgeries is penal in nature and drastic in character -having bearing on the reputation and the goodwill of the hospital and so also on the services being rendered by them to the people approaching them for other treatment. This will have to be borne in mind while appreciating the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties on the point whether the principles of natural justice were observed and/or non-observance thereof resulted in miscarriage of justice. 20. I have perused the show cause notice, which is in Kannada language, with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. The show cause notice dated 13/14.7.11 was issued under sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act calling upon the petitioner hospital to show cause why their Registration Certificate under the Act should not be suspended or cancelled for the reasons mentioned therein. The office translation of the show cause notice submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner - hospital reads thus: NOTICE Sub: Regarding the death of Smt. Seema Rai after Kidney Transplant Surgery Ref: (1) The complaint of Major Pankaj Rai (2) Lokayuktha Report (3) MDM/26/09-10 dated 25.03.2010 The Wife of Major Pankaj Rai Smt. Seema Rai was admitted to your hospital for Kidney Transplant, the kidney transplant was performed on 02.05.2010 and after died on 06.05.2010. It has been informed that his wife died because of negligence on the part of Fortis Hospital and Dr. Ramacharan Thiagarajan and his wife died because of performing Pancreas surgery without consent of the patient. Under Transplantation of Human Organs Act 1994, any Organisation desiring to perform Transplantation surgeries needs to take Permission for Transplantation from the Appropriate Authority. It has been informed that his wife died because of negligence on the part of Fortis Hospital and Dr. Ramacharan Thiagarajan and his wife died because of performing Pancreas surgery without consent of the patient. Under Transplantation of Human Organs Act 1994, any Organisation desiring to perform Transplantation surgeries needs to take Permission for Transplantation from the Appropriate Authority. It is mandatory for any person or organisation to take permission for Transplantation of Human Organs from the Appropriate Authority as per chapter 6, sub-section (1), rule 18 of Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 and any violation thereof will be punished with 5 year jail with upto Rs. 10,000/- penalty. As per reference (3) above, the Appropriate Authority for Human Organs Transplantation has accorded permission to you hospital for transplant of Kidney, Liver and Homograft only. However, you have, under the provisions of the Act, performed Kidney Transplant along with transplantation of Pancreas without obtaining the Licence and without obtaining consent from the patient causing death of the patient, hence violated the Act. Your hospital is one of the reputed hospitals and as you have not paid attention to keep the Operation Theatre clean before and after the surgery, it has been noticed that the patient died due to Post operative bleeding owing to disseminated intravascular coagulation and septic shock. Hence you have failing to keep the hospital hygienic. As any person or organisation who violates the rules under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act is punishable offence, you are requested to give your written reply within one week from the date of receipt of this notice to show cause as to why your Licence/Permission should not be cancelled? Failing which, further action will be taken as per law. Sd/- Commissioner Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs Act Bangalore 21. The show cause notice makes reference to the three items namely, (i) the complaint of the complainant, (ii) the Lokayukta report, and (iii) the registration certificate dated 25.2.10. Insofar as Lokayukta report is concerned, it does not make any reference to the date of the report or to the report of the Technical Committee dt.20.5.11. The show cause notice makes reference to the three items namely, (i) the complaint of the complainant, (ii) the Lokayukta report, and (iii) the registration certificate dated 25.2.10. Insofar as Lokayukta report is concerned, it does not make any reference to the date of the report or to the report of the Technical Committee dt.20.5.11. The reference to the Lokayukta report in the show cause notice seems to be to the report of the Technical Committee, consisting of three doctors, constituted by the Lokayukta, dated 20.5.11, Since, admittedly the report of the Lokayukta was not even ready on the date of show cause notice. 22. There is nothing on record to indicate that the report of the Technical Committee dated 20.5.11 was either served on the petitioner -hospital or they were having it when the show cause notice was issued. According to the petitioner -hospital, they were not served or having it with them when they filed reply to the show cause notice. That apart, there is no dispute, that the petitioner -hospital was not heard either by the Lokayukta or by the Technical Committee at any point of time. The Technical Committee prepared its report only on the basis of the documents placed before it by the complainant. The petitioner - hospital, was admittedly, not given any notice, either by the Lokyukta or by the Technical Committee before submitting their reports. The petitioner - hospital was not even party before the Lokayukta. As a matter of fact, the complaint before the Lokayukta was not against the petitioner -hospital. In the body of the show cause notice, no reference to the report of the Technical Committee or its findings/opinion was made. In view thereof, even if it is assumed, that the petitioner - hospital, as contended by learned counsel for the complainant, were having the said report in their possession, they were not supposed to deal with it while replying to the show cause notice. 23. In the reply to the show cause notice and in the portion of their reply quoted above, a reference was made to the Lokayukta report, which, according to the petitioner hospital, as stated in the reply itself, was based on the extensive reports published in the newspaper i.e. 'The Times of India ' dated 16.11.08. 24. 23. In the reply to the show cause notice and in the portion of their reply quoted above, a reference was made to the Lokayukta report, which, according to the petitioner hospital, as stated in the reply itself, was based on the extensive reports published in the newspaper i.e. 'The Times of India ' dated 16.11.08. 24. Thus, I am satisfied that the report dated 20.5.11 was not supplied to the petitioner and/or they were not having copy thereof while replying to the show cause notice and as observed earlier, there was no reason for the petitioner -hospital to make any reference to it in their reply to the show cause notice since it (the show cause notice) did not make any reference to the report of Technical Committee dated 20.5.11. I have no hesitation in holding that the report dated 20.5.11, which is the basis for passing the order of cancellation of registration certificate was not made available to the petitioner and that they did not have a copy thereof though the show cause notice was replied. Admittedly, even the legal opinion of the Law School, which was taken into consideration by the appropriate authority, was also not given to the petitioner -hospital. These are the documents, on which, the appropriate authority, placed heavy reliance for passing the order cancelling the registration certificate/licence. 25. In the present case, the manner in which the developments took place right from the date of complaint lodged with the appropriate authority and to the Medical Council, I am of the opinion that the documents on which the appropriate authority placed reliance upon to pass the impugned order, cancelling the Registration Certificate/licence, ought to have served copies thereof on the petitioner -hospital along with the show cause notice and given an opportunity to meet the allegations against them or the findings/opinion expressed by the Technical Committee. The appropriate authority, ought to have issued notice to the petitioner - hospital for hearing, as contemplated under subsection (2) of Section 16 of the Act. If such an opportunity of being heard was given, as has been argued on behalf of the petitioner -hospital, they could have explained their side of the story and persuaded them to reject the report of the Technical Committee and so also the legal opinion of the law school. 26. If such an opportunity of being heard was given, as has been argued on behalf of the petitioner -hospital, they could have explained their side of the story and persuaded them to reject the report of the Technical Committee and so also the legal opinion of the law school. 26. The provisions of section 16 (2) clearly and specifically contemplate an opportunity of being heard. Admittedly, the petitioner -hospital was not heard by the appropriate authority in the meeting held on 16.8.2011. It is true that under different situations and conditions the requirement of compliance of the principles of natural justice vary and that the Courts cannot insist that under all circumstances and under different statutory provisions personal hearing has to be afforded to the persons concerned. However, in the present case, not only because the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 16 of the Act provide an opportunity of being heard, but having regard to the peculiar nature of the charges and the enquiry, the appropriate authority ought to have granted an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner -hospital. In the facts of the present case, I am of the considered view that non-affording of an opportunity of being heard has caused miscarriage of justice. The principles of natural justice ought to have been followed. It is well settled that principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard before an adverse order is passed, particularly when the order is penal in nature and drastic in character. 27. In this connection, it would be relevant to refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 11 and 14 of the judgment in CANARA BANK V. V.K. AWASTHY (2005)6 SCC 321 ) "11. Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice. 14. Concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in a statute or in rules framed thereunder. They may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice. 14. Concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in a statute or in rules framed thereunder. They may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. What particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its context should be in a given case must depend to a great extent on the fact and circumstances of that case, the framework of the statute under which the enquiry is held". 28. Learned counsel for the petitioner -hospital also raised an issue whether the appropriate authority has a power to re-open the case and/or review its earlier decision by which they had exonerated the petitioner - hospital. 29. I am not entering into this issue, at this stage and keeping all contentions open for the parties to raise before the appropriate authority. The appropriate authority shall decide the complaint afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and so also supplying all the materials, on which, they intend to rely upon for deciding the complaint, well in advance. The appropriate authority shall consider and decide the complaint as expeditiously as possible and preferably, within a period of ten weeks, from the date of receipt of this order. 30. Learned counsel for the parties are directed to produce copy of this order before the appropriate authority within a period of three weeks from today. 31. On 23.12.11, the learned Single Judge, while dealing with the present writ petition had stayed the order dated 23.12.11, by which the registration certificate was cancelled by the appropriate authority and that the petitioner-hospital was restrained from carrying on transplantation of pancreas, pending further orders. This order was carried in appeal by the complainant and in the appeal, the order was stayed by the Division Bench vide order dated 17.4.12. The order of stay is operating till this date. It is true that after setting aside the orders impugned in the present case, the petitioner - hospital cannot be prohibited from carrying out Human Organs transplantation operations on the basis of the licence. The order of stay is operating till this date. It is true that after setting aside the orders impugned in the present case, the petitioner - hospital cannot be prohibited from carrying out Human Organs transplantation operations on the basis of the licence. However, in the present case, I observe that the petitioner -hospital should not perform any human organs transplantation operations, on the basis of the registration certificate dated 25.3.10 till the appropriate authority decides the matter afresh as observed earlier. It is true that even the order of suspension of licence, as contemplated under Section 16 of the Act, tantamount to final order. However, I am making such observation, in view of the fact that the orders passed by the appropriate authority and the appellate authority are set aside on technical ground namely, the opportunity of being heard was not given to the petitioner -hospital and/or they were not served with the entire material that was relied upon by them for cancelling the registration certificate/licence. In my opinion, it is necessary also in the interest of the petitioner - hospital, that they should not perform any operations till the matter is decided by the appropriate authority within the stipulated time. 32. The judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner - hospital, to persuade me not to make any such observations, in P.HANUMANTHA RAO -vs- CHIEF RATIONING OFFICER, in my opinion, would not apply to the facts of the case. Even the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in DR. B.C. SRINIVAS AND OTHERS -vs-DR. N.M. PRASAD AND ORS. (2004) ILR NULL 1182 also would not apply to the facts of the present case. 33. In the circumstances, the petitioner -hospital shall not perform any human organ transplantation surgeries for a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is made clear that if fresh order is not passed by the Appropriate Authority within the stipulated time, the petitioner - hospital will be allowed to perform transplantation operations as per the registration certificate, which, shall not include other abdominal organs such as pancreas. I hope and trust that the appropriate authority shall decide the complaint afresh within the stipulated time. I hope and trust that the appropriate authority shall decide the complaint afresh within the stipulated time. In view of the judgment passed in the first writ petition i.e. W.P. No.45437/2011, learned counsel for the complainant does not press the writ petition Nos.12721-724/12 and prays for keeping all contentions open to be raised before the appropriate authority in support of his claim. All contentions of the parties in all the writ petitions are kept open. 02.01.2013 ORDER ON ‘BEING SPOKEN TO’ This Court while disposing of W.P.Nos.12721-724/12 c/w. W.P.No.45437/2011, vide judgment and order dated 7.11.2012, in the last paragraph, made the following observations:- “In view of the judgment passed in the first writ petition i.e. W.P.No.45437/2011, learned counsel for the complainant does not press the writ petition Nos.12721-724/12 and prays for keeping all contentions open to be raised before the appropriate authority in support of his claim. All contentions of the parties in all the writ petitions are kept open.” Learned counsel for the parties inform the Court that both the sides have already filed appeals against the judgment and order dated 07.11.2012. In view thereof, it is clarified that observations made in the last paragraph shall not preclude the parties from prosecuting their appeals on merits.