similarity of the circumstance on the issue of undertaking as well as decisions which have been brought to the notice of this Court and also the correct application of relevant resolution. It appears that respondent authority on its own has corrected the mistake and put the petitioner to immense prejudice. Hence, in view of law laid down by catena of decisions, this Court is of the opinion that since the main action is without granting opporutnity of hearing to the petitioner, the said decision deserve to be quashed on that ground along with a consequential relief to the authority to reexamine the issue and to pass a reasoned order after taking into consideration every contentions of the petitioner. Since the decision making process has taken place in violation of principles of natural justice and that was prime contention raised by the petitioner in his petition, in para:b of ground, as reflecting on page:9 of the petition compilation, the case to that extent deserves consideration. The Court further is of the opinion that if the opportunity of hearing to be given to the petitioner, by the authority, the effect of Rule 28 also can be agitated before it and, therefore, withoug much entering into merits of the case, since undisputedly no opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioner before passing an order and the action has entailed civil consequences and monetary loss to the petitioner, Court deems it proper to partly allow the petition by issuing following directions which would meet ends of justice in considered opinion of this Court. While coming to the conclusion, the Court has also kept in mind the propositions of law laid down by Apex Court in the case of D.N.Jeevaraj vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka reported in (2016) 2 SCC 653, more particularly paras:41 and 43 of the said decision.
