Judgment Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard the petition by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties. 1. The petitioner challenges order dated 26.8.2013, passed by respondent No.2/Tahsildar, Warud, cancelling the licence granted in favour of petitioner/”Hotel Mahee”, and order dated 3.3.2014, passed by respondent No.1/Collector, Amravati, in Case No. 03/M.R.C.81/Pusala/768/ 20132014, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Tahsildar, Warud could not have cancelled the Eating House Licence without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is also submitted that in Writ Petition No.3482 of 2013, decided by this Court on 20.9.2013, it is held that such a licence can be cancelled only when the Eating House Licence is being run by a person of notorious and bad in character. 3. It appears that Certificate of Registration of Eating/PEO/Cold Drink House was granted in favour of one Sau. Bharati Sachin Jaiswal, at post Pusla, Taluka Warud, District Amravati, with Registration Number of Eating House mentioned in the Certificate of Registration as 4/2010 Pusla “Hotel Mahee.” 4. It is contended that Certificate of Registration of Eating House Licence, issued by the Tahsildar, Warud, was valid until 31.12.2013. Under these circumstances, the contention of the petitioner is that the opportunity to show cause against cancellation of Eating House Licence was not granted is acceptable. It is argued that without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing against the cancellation of Registration Certificate by the Tahsildar, Warud, cancelled Eating House Licence granted and continued earlier. 5. It appears that according to the Tahsildar, who passed the cancellation order, the show cause notice was issued for cause to be shown within prescribed limit. Sou. Bharati Jaiswal neither tendered her explanation nor did remain present before the Tahsildar. Therefore, the impugned order was passed. 6. Under these circumstances, in the larger interest of justice, the Tahsildar need to apply his own mind to the show cause notice and the cause shown in writing. Principles of natural justice is required to be followed. 7. Sou. Bharati Jaiswal neither tendered her explanation nor did remain present before the Tahsildar. Therefore, the impugned order was passed. 6. Under these circumstances, in the larger interest of justice, the Tahsildar need to apply his own mind to the show cause notice and the cause shown in writing. Principles of natural justice is required to be followed. 7. In view of above, impugned orders dated 26.8.2013, passed by respondent No.2/Tahsildar, Warud, and 3.3.2014, passed by respondent No.1/Collector, Amravati, are quashed and set aside with a direction that the petitioner shall show cause in writing within a period of four weeks from the date of this order with written explanation, if any, to the show cause notice received by her on 20.5.2013 by appearing before the Tahsildar. If such written explanation to the show cause notice is furnished to the Tahsildar concerned, within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, the Tahsildar would pass fresh order after hearing the petitioner and objectors, as well, if any, in respect of the Eating House Licence Registration Certificate for “Hotel Mahee”. The Tahsildar is directed to hear and decide the proceedings pursuant to the notice and shown cause as early as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of this order. The parties to appear before the Tahsildar on each date fixed for hearing by the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar shall decide the matter afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.