ORDER The petitioner filed this writ petition for a certiorari to quash notice, dated 9.1.2013, of the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Agriculture and Co-operation, Ministry of Agriculture (hereinafter referred to as respondent No.1). 2. I have heard Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents. 3. In pursuance of an understanding reached between the Indofil Industries Limited from which the petitioner has taken over the product, and the then Chairman, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyala, West Bengal (BCKV), the manufacturer has supplied insecticides and BCKV is stated to have conducted trials in 2009-10. The petitioner pleaded that BCKV completed tests and handed over the results to the Indofil Industries Limited. On 2.3.2011, the petitioner made an application to respondent No.2 for registration under Section 9 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act'). It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that while sending its report, BCKV has wrongly mentioned 2008-09 as the period during which trials were conducted and that realising its mistake, on 7.5.2012, BCKV sent a corrigendum to its report stating that the trial period was wrongly mentioned as "2008-09" due to typographical error instead of "2009-10". It is in this background that respondent No.1 exercised its revisional power under Section 11 of the Act and issued the impugned show-cause notice. 4. Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that even though the impugned proceedings are in the nature of a show-cause notice, his client is constrained to question the same for two reasons, namely; (1) that respondent No.1 has already drawn up its conclusions, rendering the further proceedings by way of show-cause notice an empty formality, and (2) that the show-cause notice has referred to an inference drawn against the petitioner, with reference to which no basis has been intimated for drawing such inference and that in the absence of such reasons, it would not be possible for the petitioner to send any meaningful reply. 5. Generally speaking, this Court does not entertain writ petitions filed questioning show-cause notices, except in cases where the authority has no power to issue such a show-cause notice or that the show-cause notice is vitiated by mala fides apparent on record. 6. 5. Generally speaking, this Court does not entertain writ petitions filed questioning show-cause notices, except in cases where the authority has no power to issue such a show-cause notice or that the show-cause notice is vitiated by mala fides apparent on record. 6. A perusal of the impugned show-cause notice would show that respondent No.1 has sought for a report from the Secretariat of CIB & RC, who, in turn, has requested the Director of Research, BCKV, to send his detailed reply and that upon receiving the reply from the Director, BCKV, and on examination of report/data provided by BCKV, respondent No.1 has drawn inference to the effect that the period 2008-09 is not a printing mistake, as asserted by BCKV, and that this inference is sustained on the basis of significant variance in the data pertaining to meteorological parameters for the year 2010 and 2008 and is brought to light by various documents on file. 7. On the request made by the petitioner, vide its letter, dated 25.1.2013, respondent No.1 has furnished all the documents, which are referred to in the impugned show-cause notice, to the petitioner. 8. In the light of the above facts, the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel need to be examined. With respect to the first submission of the learned Senior Counsel, no doubt, the tenor of the impugned show-cause notice would suggest that respondent No.1 has already drawn conclusions. But, it needs to be borne in mind that author of the show-cause notice is not a judicially trained officer, who is not expected to use the expressions which are appropriate for issuance of a show-cause notice. In the absence of any specific mala fides attributed to respondent No.1, it is reasonable to presume that the opinion, expressed in the show-cause notice is only provisional or tentative, which is always susceptible for a change depending upon the case pleaded by the petitioner and the material furnished by it in support thereof. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned show-cause notice only for the reason that respondent No.1 failed to mention therein that its conclusions are provisional. 9. With respect to the second submission of the learned Senior Counsel, it can be deciphered from Paragraph No.4 of the impugned show-cause notice that the conclusions drawn by respondent No.1 are based on the material referred to therein. 9. With respect to the second submission of the learned Senior Counsel, it can be deciphered from Paragraph No.4 of the impugned show-cause notice that the conclusions drawn by respondent No.1 are based on the material referred to therein. Therefore, it is possible for the petitioner to impress upon respondent No.1 that the available material does not warrant such inference to be drawn. For this purpose, respondent No.1 shall give the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. I have no reason to doubt that respondent No.1 would not be amenable for persuasion if the material unequivocally shows that the inference drawn by respondent No.1 cannot be sustained. Respondent No.1 shall keep absolutely open mind in considering the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate order giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. 10. Subject to the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 11. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP No.8337 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.