HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 33225 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri Devbrat Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(i) to issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order Dt 04.09.2025 passed by District Magistrate/Collector, Mirzapur (Respondent No.2) Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. (ii) to issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding to Respondent no.2 not to realize any amount in pursuance of order Dt. 04.09.2025 from the Petitioner and further no coercive action may be taken against the Petitioner in pursuance of the order Dt.04.09.2025. " 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the inspection was conducted ex-parte and the inspection report was not supplied to the petitioner. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order, having been passed in breach of natural justice, cannot be sustained. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the reply submitted by the petitioner (appearing at page 71 of the writ petition) reveals that the petitioner never demanded a copy of the inquiry report, and under Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devbrat Mukherjee Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Vindhya Stone Products .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) the applicable Rules, it is not mandatory for the authority to issue prior notice before conducting an inspection. 5. Be that as it may, from a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that due consideration has not been given to the reply submitted by the petitioner. In paragraph 3 of the reply, the petitioner has specifically stated that the inspection was conducted ex-parte, and under the relevant Rules, it is mandatory to issue notice prior to any such inspection. 6. We find from the impugned order that the reply submitted by the petitioner has not been considered by the competent authority. The impugned order is devoid of reasons and suffers from non-consideration of the petitioner's reply. 7. In such view of the fact, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.09.2025 is hereby set aside with liberty to respondent no.2 to pass a fresh order after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after supplying all the materials which the respondent wants to rely upon against the petitioner within a period of two months from today. September 22, 2025 Gaurav WRIC No. 33225 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad