ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “.......to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing the impugned notice dated 03.08.2019 bearing reference number RoC No. D2/Chilli Complaint/2018 as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as being issued in excess of the jurisdiction and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders....” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is involved in business of Research and Development, Production, Processing and Marketing of Hybrid Vegetables seeds, Crops like Chilli, Tomato, Okra, All Gourds, Watermelon, Cucumber, Coriander, Spincach etc. from 2009 onwards with outstanding performance. A variety of Chilli viz. F1, Manjari was developed and trialed during 2016-17 and 2017-18. Based on the good results the petitioner produced 35 Kgs (bearing Lot No. 0318233-10 kgs and Lot No. 0118083-25 Kgs) of the same variety during 2017-18. The petitioner sold seeds of this Chilli in the State of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. The 2nd respondent issued proceedings No. AGRI-PPOSACT/29/2018-SA (D2)- JDKRNL, dated 3.10.2018 informed the petitioner that the committee members in their field inspection report opined that there may be considerable yield loss due to variability in plants, less number of fruits and sterile plants and accordingly sought a reply from the petitioner company on the issue. The 2nd respondent through e-mail dated 17.12.2018 directed the Authorized Signatory of the petitioner company to attend the District Level Committee meeting that was to be held on 18.12.2018 at 4.00 PM under the Chairmanship of 3rd respondent to deliberate upon the issue. Thereafter the petitioner company had addressed a letter to 3rd respondent vide letter No. 7370/Dr. YSRHU/Research/2018, dated 13.08.2018 with reference to action initiated by 2nd respondent and the District Level Committee meeting held at 3rd respondent’s office at Kurnool on 18.12.2018. Though it was not responsible for the alleged crop failure requested the 3rd respondent to direct the 2nd respondent and all other officials to drop further action in this regard. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Though it was not responsible for the alleged crop failure requested the 3rd respondent to direct the 2nd respondent and all other officials to drop further action in this regard. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 denying all the allegations made in the petition and contended that DLC meeting was convened on 18.12.2018 under the chairmanship of the District Collector & Chairman, DLC, Kurnool along with all designated members, farmer representatives and company representatives in which detail deliberations were conducted duly verifying the Scientists report, farmer opinion and company representatives representations, thereafter the District Collector & Chairman, DLC, Kurnool has directed the company representatives to arrange for payment of compensation towards the crop losses and further instructed the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kurnool to assess the Green Chilli yield losses by conducting crop cutting experiments in the affected farmers fields immediately. It is further stated that the Government of A.P has constituted compensation committees at State level and District level vide G.O.Rt. No. 1117, dated 01.10.2011 as a measure of seed regulation for the purpose of addressing the farmer complaints regarding the failure of crops due to poor quality seeds supplied by the seed companies. Therefore exercise of the executive powers of the State tracing from Article 162 of Constitution of India, the Government of AP has constituted district level committee under the Chairmanship of the District Collector to go into the complaints of the farmers, individual (or) general in respect of supply of spurious or defective seed after due procedure, fix the responsibility of compensation/ damages on the seed producer concerned and the decision of the said committee/ committees is final and shall be binding on both the parties. Therefore, in exercising the powers vested as per the Government Order, the Collector and Chairman, District Level Committee, Kurnool, has directed the authorized signatory of the petitioner company to arrange for payment of compensation towards the crop losses. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Mr. Sai Sanjay Suraneni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Agriculture appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent No. 3. 5. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Mr. Sai Sanjay Suraneni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Agriculture appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent No. 3. 5. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents without conducting elaborate enquiry and decided that the petitioner is found guilty and mechanically issued erroneous notice against the petitioner is highly illegal and arbitrary and requested to remand back the matter to the respondents for conducting elaborate enquiry and final report. 6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents vehemently opposed to grant relief in favour of the petitioner in view of written complaint against the petitioner and the respondents issued show cause notice and as the explanations submitted by the petitioner are not satisfied by the authorities, has passed the impugned notice dated 03.08.2019. Therefore, vehemently opposed to grant relief in favour of the petitioner and he further contended that he has no objection to remand back the matter to the 2nd respondent for fresh enquiry in the matter. 7. In view of a close scrutiny of the impugned notice shows, as rightly argued by learned counsel for petitioner, after noting in detail the allegations, the 2nd respondent issued notice, without conducting any enquiry. 8. Therefore, it is needless to emphasize the order is devoid of reasons and bereft of following the principles of natural justice. In similar circumstances, a learned Single Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, having found that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner therein and his explanation was not considered by the authority, set aside the impugned order of termination of the petitioner therein from the service and directed the concerned authority to pass appropriate order after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner. The said order squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand. 9. No doubt, it is argued by learned Government Pleader for respondents that an appeal provision is provided in the concerned rules and thereby the writ is not maintainable. I am not convinced with this argument for the reason, in the instant case there is a discernible violation of principles of natural justice as noted supra. 10. 9. No doubt, it is argued by learned Government Pleader for respondents that an appeal provision is provided in the concerned rules and thereby the writ is not maintainable. I am not convinced with this argument for the reason, in the instant case there is a discernible violation of principles of natural justice as noted supra. 10. Though admittedly the petitioner submitted its written explanation, the same was not considered and no personal hearing was also granted to the petitioner at the time of enquiry. Therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. 11. In Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others, AIR 1999 SC 22 : MANU/SC/0664/1998 regarding maintainability of writ petition in the context of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy, the Apex Court held thus: “14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, Qua Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for “any other purpose.” 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. (Emphasis supplied) The instant case falls in one of the exceptions carved out by the Apex Court, the principles of natural justice is a casualty here. 12. (Emphasis supplied) The instant case falls in one of the exceptions carved out by the Apex Court, the principles of natural justice is a casualty here. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the both the counsel, the impugned notice bearing RoC No. D2/Chilli Complaint/2018, dated 03.08.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent with a direction to conduct fresh enquiry in accordance with the Seeds Act, 1966, the Seeds Rules 1968 and The Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 and follow due process of law and pass appropriate reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.