ORDER : Writ Petition Nos.27337 and 27203 of 2016 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records from the respondents relating to and connected with the order passed by the 2nd respondent Proceedings No.2697/C1/2016 dated 25.7.2016 and quash the same and pass.….” 2. Since the relief claimed in both the petitions is identical, I find that it is appropriate to decide both the writ petitions by common order taking Writ Petition No.27337 of 2016 as leading petition. 3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 issued a Tender Notification dated 10.06.2015 for supply of fish seed of three species of Indian Major carps i.e. Catla, Rohu and Mrigala, district wise, for rearing and stocking them into Reservoirs and tanks under RFD Programme of NFDB and other Schemes implementing by the Fisheries Department during the year 2015-16. The petitioner obtained tender document on payment of Rs.5000/- by way of demand draft and participated in the tender and became successful bidder to supply of fish seed i.e. 40 mm to a tune of 1200 lakh and 80 mm 570 lakh. As per the supply order dated 10.09.2015 and the petitioner was asked to supply total fish seedlings of 8,19,666. Thereafter, another supply order was issued to him on 19.10.2015 and was asked to supply the quantity of 20.45 lakh along with performance Guarantee of 10% of the total estimated value in both the supply orders. 4. The Fish Farm of the petitioner is located at Pallevada village of Kaikalur Mandal, Krishna district. The rearing capacity of the said Fish Farm is 1200 lakh per annum. The number of rearing ponds are 14. The quantity of seed (Fry -25 mm) sold during the years 2012-13 was 190.00 lakh, 2013-14 was 110 lakh and 2014-15 is 180 lakh. The other sizes sold during the year 2012-13 was 590 lakh, 2013-14 was 470 lakh and 2014-15 was 445 lakh. The tender submitted by the petitioner was accepted by respondent No.2 and as indicated above supply order was given to him. As per the order given to the petitioner, he has paid the Performance Guarantee and entered into an agreement. As per the tender conditions, receiving the lesser number fish seedlings, in particular load is not violation. The tender submitted by the petitioner was accepted by respondent No.2 and as indicated above supply order was given to him. As per the order given to the petitioner, he has paid the Performance Guarantee and entered into an agreement. As per the tender conditions, receiving the lesser number fish seedlings, in particular load is not violation. But, the petitioner was required to supply fish seedlings as per the Agreement. In case, less quantity was supplied than the agreed quantity, the same should be treated as violation. 5. The petitioner herein along with Siva Fish Seed Farm, Bhujabalapatnam (Petitioner in W.P.No.27203 of 2016) were asked to supply 20.00 lakh 80mm fish seed. At the time of loading the fish seedlings, respondent No.4 was present and satisfied about the health condition, quality and quantity of the fish seedlings. But, on 25.07.2016 respondent No.2 issued impugned proceedings blacklisting the petitioners stating that the supplier said to have reported that 20.00 lakh of seed was lifted in 25 transport vehicles with a capacity of 80,000 No. of seed in each vehicle @ 8,000 Numbers in each drum for 10 drums in a vehicle, however, on counting of seed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram and Seed Stocking Committee, the average Catla seed is arrived @5383 Nos in each vehicle, the rohu seed is @ 54496 in each vehicle and the mrigala seed is @ 99333 in each vehicle. It is further alleged that, totally 14,83,783 Nos. of fish seed is arrived in 25 vehicles as against the statement of 20.00 lakh of seed and same was stocked in the presence of Seed Stocking Committee and the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is also alleged that the statement of the supplier and the original accurate counting is not correlated with each other and there is variation. It is also alleged that the supplier has supplied only 14.837 lakh as against the order of 20.00 lakh and there is a short fall of fish seed of 5.162 lakh. It is alleged that the supplier has cheated the department. In view of the same, the firm is put in blacklist from taking part in tenders for supply of fish seed to any State Government Departments for a period of three years from the current year by imposing the penal provision. It is alleged that the supplier has cheated the department. In view of the same, the firm is put in blacklist from taking part in tenders for supply of fish seed to any State Government Departments for a period of three years from the current year by imposing the penal provision. The fact remains that respondent No.3 in his letter No.919/C/2015, dated 10.11.2015 informed to respondent No.2 that soon after receipt of the trucks with fish seed, the members of the Committee verified each drum of the each truck and observed that the received seed is in healthy condition. He further stated that as the fish seed was subjected to mortality due to long distance transport i.e. lifted from Kaikalur, Krishna district on 6.11.2015 and also overcrowding of fish seed in the drums and also high temperature and as few fish seed was found dead in Syntax drums, the Committee felt that if it is continued for further period, more mortality may result due to accumulation of ammonia content and also lack of sufficient oxygen in Syntax drums. To avoid further mortality of fish seed in drums, the Committee has decided and stocked the fish seed of remaining vehicles in Chitravathi Balancing Reservoir. But contrary to the same, in the impugned proceedings it is alleged that totally 14,83,783 Nos. of fish seed is arrived in 25 vehicles as against the statement of 20.00 lakh of seed and the same was stocked in the presence of Seed Stocking Committee and the Revenue Divisional Officer. The impugned order does not speak about the fish seedlings supplied by the petitioner. The fact remains that separate tenders were submitted by the petitioner and Siva Fish Seed Farm (petitioner in W.P.No.27203 of 2016) and separate agreements were entered and stocks were lifted from different places and in different vehicles. But, unfortunately, the impugned order lacks clarity as to the seedlings supplied by the petitioner herein. At the time of loading the fish seedlings, respondent No.4 was present and he was satisfied about the health condition, quality and quantity of fish seedlings. Therefore, the impugned proceedings issued by respondent No.2 blacklisting the firm in taking part in tenders for supply of fish seed to any State Government departments for a period of three years from the current year by imposing penal provision, is contrary to the supplies made and acknowledged by the department. Therefore, the impugned proceedings issued by respondent No.2 blacklisting the firm in taking part in tenders for supply of fish seed to any State Government departments for a period of three years from the current year by imposing penal provision, is contrary to the supplies made and acknowledged by the department. Apart from that the impugned proceedings was issued without issuing any show cause notice, which is violative of principles of natural justice. Hence, the writ petition. 6. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the material allegations and contended that on 07.11.2015, the petitioner herein and the petitioner in W.P.No.27203 of 2016, has arrived along with 25 seed transport vehicles at Stocking point of CBR Reservoir near Peddakotla village of Tadimarri Mandal. Soon after receipt of the seed vehicles, the Seed stocking Committee has called the supplier, and asked him with regard to the quantity of seed supplied with species wise and size etc., The Supplier has reported that 20.00 lakh of seed was lifted in 25 transport vehicles with a capacity of 80,000 No. of seed in each vehicle @ 8,000 No's in each drum for 10 drums. This was reported by respondent No.3 (Asst. Director of Fisheries, Ananthapur). On thorough counting of seed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram and Seed Stocking Committee, the average catla seed is arrived @ 53,183 No's in each vehicle, the rohu seed is 54,496 in each vehicle, and the mrigal seed is @ 99,333 in vehicle. As such, totally 14,83,783 No's fish seed is arrived in 25 vehicles as against the statement of 20.00 lakh of fish seed. It clearly shows that the supplier has played mischief resulting loss to the poor fisher folk who are depending on fishing in reservoir. The same was badly telecasted in Electronic media on the same day and also published adverse news in print media. The District Collector, Ananthapur has also reported, orally, that the supplier has malafide intention in supplying fish seed in Chitravathi balancing reservoir. The petitioner, while lifting the fish seed, intentionally informed to the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Ananthapur that he has lifted 20.00 lakhs of fish seed in 25 vehicles. Therefore, the petitioner was kept in black list. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.2 unilaterally without even obtaining any report from respondent No.4 with regard to the quantity and health condition of fish seeds, passed the impugned order. Therefore, the petitioner was kept in black list. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.2 unilaterally without even obtaining any report from respondent No.4 with regard to the quantity and health condition of fish seeds, passed the impugned order. Respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order ought to have given an opportunity to substantiate the allegations made against the petitioner with regard to lesser quantity and no notice was issued to the petitioner before the passing the impugned order, which is against the principles of natural justice, and requested to set aside the impugned proceedings. 8. Learned Government Pleader for Fisheries contended that the petitioner, while lifting the fish seed, intentionally informed to the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Ananthapur that he has lifted 20.00 lakhs of fish seed in 25 vehicles. Further, supplier has played mischief resulting loss to the poor fisher folk who are depending on fishing in reservoir. The same was badly telecasted in Electronic media on the same day and also published adverse news in print media. The District Collector, Ananthapur has also reported, orally, that the supplier has malafide intention in supplying fish seed in Chitravathi balancing reservoir. Therefore, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 needs no interference by this Court, and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Facts are not in dispute. Writ petitioner challenged the impugned proceedings mainly on the ground that neither any notice was given nor an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 10. It appears from the record, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order blacklisting the petitioner from taking part in tenders for supply of fish seed to any State Government Departments for a period of three years from the date of order by imposing penal provision of their lapses without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein, which is in violation of “Audi alteram Partem” as it is the basic concept of the principles of natural justice. 11. Audi alteram partem means “hear the other side”, or “no man should be condemned unheared” or “both the sides must be heard before passing any order”. Generally, this maxim includes two elements: (i) Notice; and (ii) Hearing. 12. Before any action is taken, the affected party must be given a notice to show cause as to why the action shall not be taken against him. Generally, this maxim includes two elements: (i) Notice; and (ii) Hearing. 12. Before any action is taken, the affected party must be given a notice to show cause as to why the action shall not be taken against him. It is a sine qua non of the right of fair hearing. Any order passed without giving notice is against the principles of natural justice and is void ab initio. The right to notice means the right of being known. A notice must contain the time, place and date of hearing, and proposed action against the person. All these things should be included in a notice to make it proper and adequate. Non-issue of the notice or any defective service of the notice do not affect the jurisdiction of the authority but violates the principles of natural justice. 13. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials, firstly; a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard, secondly; the concerned authority should follow fair and transparent procedure and lastly; the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matters by reasoned order or speaking order. This has been uniformly applied by Courts in India and abroad [vide: “Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax v. M/s. Shukla, (2010) 4 SCC 785 ”]. 14. In the present case, no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling for his explanation for the alleged lapses mentioned in the impugned order. If notice was issued to the petitioner, respondents would have referred to the same in the impugned order. But the impugned order is silent as to the issuance of notice to the petitioner. So, it is clear, no notice was issued to the petitioner calling for his explanation before passing the impugned order. 15. By applying the principle laid down in the above judgment as no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order as the same is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 16. In view of the detailed order passed in W.P.No.27337 of 2016, W.P.No.27203 of 2016 also deserves to be allowed. 17. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 16. In view of the detailed order passed in W.P.No.27337 of 2016, W.P.No.27203 of 2016 also deserves to be allowed. 17. Accordingly, writ petition Nos.27337 and 27203 of 2016 are allowed setting aside the order proceedings No.2697/C1/2016 dated 25.07.2016 issued by respondent No.2 against the petitioners. No costs. 18. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petitions, shall stand closed. No costs.