This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 12th January, 2025 passed by the Municipal Corporation cancelling the trade license issued to the petitioner for operating a wholesale grain market in the designated commercial zone. The petitioner contends that the cancellation was made without affording any opportunity of hearing and without recording reasons in writing, in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner further submits that the license had been renewed continuously for the past eleven years and that no complaint regarding violation of any municipal regulation was ever communicated prior to the impugned order. The respondent corporation, in its counter affidavit, has stated that the cancellation was necessitated by repeated complaints from neighbouring residents regarding excessive noise and obstruction of the public road caused by loading and unloading operations conducted during late night hours. It is further stated that three written warnings were issued to the petitioner between March and September of the preceding year, none of which evoked any corrective response. The petitioner denies having received any such warnings and submits that the addresses recorded in the corporation's records are outdated, the petitioner having shifted the registered office two years prior to the alleged warnings. Having heard learned counsel for both parties and having perused the record placed before this Court, including the original license file and the correspondence exchanged between the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the cancellation order suffers from a fundamental procedural infirmity. No show cause notice was issued to the petitioner prior to cancellation, and the petitioner was not granted any opportunity to respond to the allegations levelled against it. It is a settled principle of administrative law that an order having civil consequences cannot be passed without observing the minimum requirements of natural justice, however strong the underlying allegations may appear to be. The respondent corporation's reliance on internal warning letters, which were never proved to have been served upon the petitioner, cannot substitute for a proper show cause notice followed by a reasoned order. The petitioner's counsel further submitted that similarly situated traders in the same market had not been subjected to any such cancellation despite comparable circumstances, and that the impugned action amounted to selective and discriminatory enforcement. The respondent corporation was unable to satisfactorily explain this discrepancy during the course of hearing. This Court, while refraining from returning a definitive finding on the question of discrimination at this stage, directs that the same be duly considered by the corporation while passing the fresh order. Accordingly, this Court quashes the order dated 12th January, 2025 and directs the respondent corporation to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner within two weeks from today, granting the petitioner an opportunity to file a reply and to be heard in person before any final decision is taken. The respondent corporation shall pass a fresh reasoned order within six weeks from the date of hearing. Until such fresh order is passed, the petitioner's trade license shall be treated as valid and subsisting, subject to the petitioner strictly complying with all applicable municipal regulations regarding operating hours and road obstruction. The petition is allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.