HIGH COURT QF JUDICATURE ATBiy^SPyRiCHHAJTISGARH SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, C.J. Writ Petition No. SS OF 2< \ PETITSONER Versus RESPQNDENTS SmS. Archana Shah, wife of Shri Pravesh Shah, aged about 32 years, residsnt of M.I.G. 137, Padmnabhpur, District Durg (Chhattisgarh)491001. Indian Oi! Corporation Limited, Marketing Division, Raipur D8ivisional Office, Indian Oil Bhawan, Rajiv Gandhi Marg (V.t.P. Road) P.0. Ravigram, Teiibandha, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 492006, The Senior Divisiona! Retai! Sales Manager, Indian Oit Corporation Ltd., V.I.P. Road, Telibandha, Ravigram P.0., Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Present • Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Sr. Advocate with Shri Deepak Jain, ieamed counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.S. Tiwari, learned counsel forthe respondents. (Passedon 20th Juiy, 2008) This writ petition deserves to be allowed on a short ground of utter violation of principles of nafciral justice and fair play in action. Sectlon Pane! for S.K.Q. dealership granted to ths petitioner at Abhanpur, District Raipur was cancel!ed by the impugned order of the Corporation dated 19-12-2005 because of certain undisclosed complaint received by the Corporation against the petltioner. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the Corporation has fi!ed its rstum. !n the return, it is statedthat the petitioner was altotted marks undsr the head "Land and Infrastructure", fcut, subsequentiy it was noticed ttiat the petitioner has not shown or - ^ ^-—.. -2 mentioned any land in her application form. The correclness of the above statement of the Corporation was hotly contested by the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that as permitted by the Corporation itself, the petitioner had acquired the land. There is no need for thls Court to dea! with this writ petition on merits to see whether there was justification for the Corporation to cancel the S.K.O. dealerehip allotted to the petitioner or not. The fact remains that the impugned order was passed behind the back of the petitioner and that too without disciosing the ground now steted in the return as a ground to cance! the dealership. Affected should be appraised is a mandatory requirement flowingfrom Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. In that view of the matter, 1 atlow this writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 19-12-2005. However, this order shall not come in the 'ft'ay of the Corporation passing appropriate order after issuing notice to the petitioner and giving her a reasonable opportunity of being heard, if there is any good ground to cancel the dealership, in accordance with law. No costs. _^-— Sdf- ' S.R. Nayak Chief Justice