Judgment 1. Heard both sides. 2. According to the Petitioner, she came to know that on 24.7.2012 in the early morning at 6.15 am, the first Respondent- District Collector, Madurai came to his depot to conduct inspection along with Deputy Tahsildar. After his visit, one Muruganantham, Madurai North Taluk obtained a signature that she purchased milk for an amount higher than the fixed price. Subsequently, the Petitioner was handed over to the second respondent office. On 25.7.2012, the second respondent sent notice for having supplied nearby shopkeeper to show cause as to why her licence cannot be cancelled. Within three days from the said show cause notice, the first Respondent accepted merely the shop keeper statement, which is against the principles of natural justice. 3. The clear cut case of the Petitioner is that after issuance of show cause notice to her, she submitted her reply on 27.7.2012 to the second Respondent, but her licence was cancelled by passing the impugned order dated 28.7.2012. 4. It is the version of the Petitioner that the second Respondent issued a circular dated 6.11.2012 to her subordinates and the same was circulated to all the depots, in which the second Respondent stated that the Petitioner sold 50 liters of milk and as such, used to sell the unsold milk to the shop keepers in the early morning hours. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner brings to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner on earlier occasion filed WP(MD).Nos.11192 and 11193 of 2012 against the impugned order and the writ petitions were dismissed by this Court on 16.8.2012. It is to be noted that in WP(MD).Nos.11192 and 11193 of 2012 filed by the Petitioner, on 16.8.2012 this Court has clearly held that the writ petitions are not maintainable and the Petitioner has to work out her remedy in the manner known to law. 6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner refers to the order dated 18.8.2014 passed by this Court in WP(MD).No.1359 of 2013. In paragraph Nos.8 to 10, it is observed as follows: “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. 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.” 7. As far as the present case is concerned, it is clear from the impugned proceedings dated 28.7.2012 passed by the second Respondent that the petitioner's explanation was found to be not acceptable and accordingly the licence in question was cancelled. In fact, the second Respondent has mentioned in the impugned order that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not acceptable. There is no outline of process of reasoning as to how the said explanation submitted by the petitioner was found as not acceptable one. In this regard, the second Respondent has passed an unreasoned order without assigning any qualitative or quantitative reasons for cancelling the licence of the Petitioner and also no opportunity of personal hearing was given to her as opined by this Court. 8. In any event, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 28.7.2012 passed by the second Respondent is clearly an unlawful one and this Court is left with no other option but to set aside the said order. Accordingly, the present impugned order 28.7.2012 passed by the second Respondent is hereby set aside in furtherance of substantial cause of justice. Consequently the writ petition succeeds. 9. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Connected MP (MD) Nos.1 to 3 of 2013 are closed.