Judgment 1. The petitioner in this Writ Petition seeks for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order passed by the second respondent, dated 28.07.2012. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner was a licensee of the respondent organization having been allotted a booth for vending milk. Each booth is allotted a minimum number of card holders. The petitioner is stated to have been carrying his activities strictly in accordance with the licence condition for the past 25 years without any default. The second respondent took a policy decision to augment the sale of milk by issuing a circular to the effect that they have to boost up the sale and they would be entitled to a commission. The directions issued are contained in circular, dated 06.07.2012. The petitioner would state that there was pressure exerted by the respondent organization to increase the sale. As a result of which several of the licencee have dumped milk packets with private vendors and petty shops with a view to achieve the target as stipulated in the circular, dated 06.07.2012. 4. According to the petitioner, he has been carrying on work strictly in accordance with the licence condition and had increased the sales as per the circular, dated 06.07.2012. 5. It appears that inspection was conducted and in which an allegation was made that the petitioner had supplied the milk packets to a nearby store, therefore, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, dated 06.07.2012 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why his licence should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted the explanation, dated 26.07.2012, followed by a further explanation, dated 27.07.2012. In the said explanation, the petitioner submitted that he has not sold the milk in excess at the rate prescribed and he has not disposed of all the milk packets to private vendors and such other things. 6. By the impugned proceedings, the second respondent has rejected the petitioner’s explanation by merely stating that the explanation is not acceptable. No reasons have been given by the second respondent for rejecting the petitioner’s explanation. 6. By the impugned proceedings, the second respondent has rejected the petitioner’s explanation by merely stating that the explanation is not acceptable. No reasons have been given by the second respondent for rejecting the petitioner’s explanation. That apart, the petitioner was not given an opportunity of personal hearing and no enquiry was conducted as to on what basis the respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been selling the milk more than that the rate prescribed or other allegations made against the petitioner. 7. When the matter came up for admission before this court on 13.03.2013, this Court, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader passed an interim order to the following effect:- “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the second respondent seeks time to file counter. Mr. S. Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the first respondent. 2. The petitioner is a licensed dealer of Aavin Milk. The second respondent issued a circular on 06.07.2012 calling upon the licensees to sell more milk, in view of the increased production. While so, the licensed premises of the petitioner was inspected by the District Collector, Madurai and other officials on 24.07.2012 and they have reported that the petitioner sold more milk to the traders and others. The petitioner was given a show cause notice on 25.07.2012, to which, a reply was submitted by him on 26.07.2012. The reply was not found convincing and as such, the second respondent passed the impugned order cancelling the license. 3. The second respondent wanted more milk to be sold and it was only to comply with the said direction, the petitioner sold milk to the customers. The impugned order does not contain any indication that the petitioner collected excess amount from the customers. The impugned order is bereft of particulars. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case. Accordingly, there shall be an interim stay of the impugned order until further orders. 4. The second respondent is directed to supply milk to the petitioner on the basis of the license issued to him on 01.07.1987 forthwith. The second respondent is directed to submit a report of compliance at 10.30 a.m. on 18.03.2012. 5. Accordingly, there shall be an interim stay of the impugned order until further orders. 4. The second respondent is directed to supply milk to the petitioner on the basis of the license issued to him on 01.07.1987 forthwith. The second respondent is directed to submit a report of compliance at 10.30 a.m. on 18.03.2012. 5. Post on 18.03.2013.” Pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court, the petitioner is continuing to operate as a licencee. 8. The objection raised in the counter-affidavit is by stating that the petitioner has been disposing of the unsold packets to nearby shops and he has violated the condition of licence and the Writ Petition is not maintainable, since the second respondent is a Society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. 9. It is seen that the impugned order has been challenged on the ground of total violation of principles of natural Justice and non-application of mind and offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this court is not denude of jurisdiction in interfering with the impugned proceedings. This Court has found that the impugned order has not assigned any reasons as to why the explanation given by the petitioner is not acceptable. Thus, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed in an arbitrary manner and therefore, calls for interference. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.