ORDER : B.S. BHANUMATHI, J. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in issuing the impugned Memo in Roc.No.D/FCO 1985/2025, dated 04-11-2025 cancelling the Fertilizers Retail License of the petitioner without giving an opportunity of personal hearing as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Clause No.31 of Fertiliser (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Order, 1985. 2. The case of the writ petitioner, is briefly, as follows: The petitioner has been issued a licence by the respondent No.1 for retail sale of fertilizers in the year 2024. Since then, the petitioner has been doing business. On 30.10.2025, the respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice stating that, basing on a complaint dated 30.10.2025 received from the farmers of Boyawandlakottal village, the respondents inspected the shop of the petitioner and found that the petitioner had violated Clauses Nos.4, 5, 8(2) and 35 of the Fertiliser (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Order, 1985 (for short, the Order, 1985), and calling for submission of explanation within three days as to why not action be initiated on the violation of the above said clauses. The petitioner has not been served with a copy of the complaint allegedly made by the farmers or the copy of panchanama, dated 30.10.2025. The petitioner went to the office of the respondent No.1 and requested to furnish a copy of the complaint and also the panchanama but, they were not supplied to the petitioner. As such, the petitioner could not furnish the explanation. Meanwhile, the respondent No.1 issued memo dated 04.11.2025, cancelling the fertiliser retail license of the petitioner on the ground that no explanation had been submitted within the stipulated time. As per Clause 31(1) of the Order, 1985, the registering authority has to give an opportunity of personal hearing before cancelling the license, but, no such opportunity had been given to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned memo dated04.11.2025, cancelling the licence is challenged in this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submission as in the writ petition by referring to the provision under Clause 31(1) of the Order, 1985. 4. Hence, the impugned memo dated04.11.2025, cancelling the licence is challenged in this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submission as in the writ petition by referring to the provision under Clause 31(1) of the Order, 1985. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Agriculture representing the respondents submitted that it is incorrect that no copy of panchanama had been served on the petitioner, but, it was in fact, served on the petitioner on the same day. He placed on record a copy of the written instructions of the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Ananthapuramu Mandal, Ananthapuram/respondent No.2, dated 06.11.2025, in which it was stated that a case under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 had been filed before the Collector and District Magistrate, Ananthapuramu against the petitioner and the proceedings are awaited. He further submitted that since a show cause notice had been served on the petitioner, Clause 31(1) of the Order, 1985, had been duly complied. 5. The written instructions are silent about service of copy of the complaint (referred in the show cause notice) on the petitioner. A perusal of the show cause notice shows that there is no clear mention of what aspect was violated by the petitioner. The show cause notice simply refers to violation of clauses by mentioning their numbers alone. Therefore, it is difficult for any person to answer such vague show cause notice, more particularly in the light of non- service of a copy of the complaint of the farmers referred in the notice. 6. Since the license has been cancelled only on the ground of non-submission of explanation, it is a case fit to set aside the order cancelling the license of the petitioner. However, in view of the allegations made against the petitioner, as can be seen from the copy of the panchanama filed along with the written instructions, the respondents can be given liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice with all details necessary along with a copy of the complaint and also by providing an opportunity of hearing, if requested by the petitioner, as required under Rule 31(1) of the Order, 1985, and pass an order afresh after hearing. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.