ORDER : Jyoti Saran, J. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, G.P.14 for the State. 2. By the order impugned bearing Memo No. 749 dated 1.6.2013, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Siwan has been pleased to cancel the licence of the petitioner and some others for operating the ultrasound centers under the provisions of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Protection of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on grounds that the persons named therein were operating their ultrasound centers without ensuring compliance of the statutory provisions of the Act. The name of the petitioner appears at Serial No.6 of the impugned order placed at Annexure-2 of the writ petition. 3. Mr. Verma learned counsel for the petitioner has made a very short submission for questioning the impugned order. He submits that the order has been passed without any show cause notice to the petitioner and without giving him opportunity to explain the position and rebut the charges. 4. Despite the endeavour of Mr. Ambastha to draw the matter to the appellate remedy available to the petitioner under the Act, he could not respond on the issue of denial of opportunity to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. 5. Any order which has civil consequences and effects the right of parties, requires adherence to the principles of natural justice. In the present case it is manifest that an inspection was conducted by the Principal Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and during which course he detected that some of the ultra sound centers were being run in contravention of the statutory requirements and it is in the light of the direction issued by the Principal Secretary that the impugned order has been passed. The order neither reflects whether the copy of the inspection report was afforded to the petitioner nor does it reflect whether any opportunity was provided to him to explain his defence. The order clearly violates the principles of natural justice and thus cannot be sustained. 6. On this ground alone the order bearing Memo No. 749 dated 1.6.2013 in so far as it concerns the petitioner whose name appears at Serial No.6 is set aside. 7. This order however would not preclude the respondent authorities from proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law. 8. 6. On this ground alone the order bearing Memo No. 749 dated 1.6.2013 in so far as it concerns the petitioner whose name appears at Serial No.6 is set aside. 7. This order however would not preclude the respondent authorities from proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law. 8. This writ application is allowed with the observation and direction aforementioned.