personally heard. He submits that the Respondents, being statutory authorities, cannot be allowed to treat two similar situated schools differently. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for the Respondents, at the outset contends that the present writ petition is premature and not maintainable at this stage, since a final order is yet to be passed by the Respondents. He submits that once an appropriate order is passed under Section 20(1) of the DSE Act, the Petitioner will have an adequate opportunity to prefer an appeal in the form of a review before the Administrator under Section 20(4) of the Act, at which stage the matter would be re-examined by the Administrator. 6. Mr. Singh further contends that when the applicable statutory provision only provides for an opportunity of showing cause, there is no reason as to why an opportunity of being granted a personal hearing should be read into the same. His contention, thus, is that an opportunity of showing cause under Section 20(1) of the DSE Act only contemplates a reasonable opportunity to explain one’s stand and not a right to a personal hearing, which the Respondents may or may not grant to the concerned school in their own discretion. Taking his plea further, Mr. Singh contends that the right to a personal hearing is not a sine qua non of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, cannot be demanded as a matter of right by the Petitioners. In support of his aforesaid contentions, Mr. Singh relies on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Preet Public Secondary School and Ors. v. The Administrator of NCT of Delhi (Lt. Governor of Delhi) and Ors. [59 (1995) DLT 482 (DB)] and Managing Committee Vidya Bhawan Girls Sr. Sec. School v. Director of Education and Anr. [198 (2013) DLT 355 (DB)] , as also the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of
