WP(C) 659/2002 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. SARMA The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is the order passe d by the then chairperson of Doomdooma Town Committee, Doomdooma which appears t o have been passed on 21.8.2001 by which the allotment of Room No. 25 of the Tow n Committee in favour of the Writ-Petitioner was cancelled holding that the noti ce of the proposed action was served upon him. The said order in its entirety is quoted below  O R D E R Appeared Sri Satya Gopal Roy with his learned Advocate Misc. J. Pho okan, Sri Atul Bhaattacharjee absent. As per office record it is seen that Sri Atul Bhattacharjee, exist ing leassee of the Doomdooma Town Committee’s Road side stall No. 25 received o ut notice No. 357-60/28 dated 26.7.2001 which was issued to him fixing date of h earing on 10.8.2001. But without assigning any reason Sri Bhatacharjee was absen t in the hearing. Afterwards notice was issued again to Sri Bhattacharjee fixing date of hearing on 24.8.2001. But as per report of the Office Peon it is seen t hat the family members of Sri Bhattacharjee refused to accept the Notice. Heard the Ist party Sri Satya gopal Roy, on behalf of Sri Roy, le arned Advocate stated that, whereas the Honourable District Judge, Tinsukia has dismissed the appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 2000 preferred by the appellant against the order of 6.12.99 passed by the Court of Civil Judge Jr. Division Ti nsuia in Misc. (J) Case No. 13 of 1987 that arises out of T.S. No. 21/97 on cont est with cost. And whereas the 2nd party is willfully absent and willfully abse nt and willfully avoiding the service of notices from the Town Committee the adv ocate represented the petitioner has submitted that the name of the petitioner b e recorded in the record book of Doomdooma Town Committee. After heard the party and on perusal the records, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to get reallotment of Room No. 25. Considering the above mentioned circumstances and as per order dated 20.9.2000 passed by Hon’ble Civil Judge Junior No. 1, Tinsukia cancelled the al lotment of Sri Atul Bhattacharjee and allotted the Room No. 25 of Road side Stal l of Doomdooma Town Committee to Sri Satya Gopal Roy, Husband of Late Sandhya Ra ni Roy, the original lessee. The 2nd Asstt. will make necessary correction of th e record. Heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, the learned counsel for the writ petitione r and Mr. B.K. Goswami appearing for Respondent No. 2. None appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. i.e. Doomdooma Town Committee in spite of service of not ice. Ms. R. Chakraborty represents the State of Assam, Respondent No. 3. The main grievance as projected by Mr. A.K. Goswami is that the impu gned order has been passed without according reasonable opportunity of hearing t o the petitioner and as such he could not place his case before the authority an d without considering the relevant facts the impugned order has been in his abse nce. Mr. B.K. Goswami, on the other hand, referring to the impugned order submits that the petitioner has refused to accept notice intimating him the dat e of hearing as 24-8-2001 and as such the authority had no other alternative but to proceed with the matter in his absence. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. A close scrutiny of para 2 of the impugned order discloses that no tice for hearing of the matter viz. for recording the name of the respondent No. 2 in the records of the Town Committee as lessee canceling the name of the peti tioner was issued on 26.7.08 fixing the matter on 10.8.2001. Although in the imp ugned order it is stated that the petitioner ignored the said notice in fact it is contended by the learned counsel that an application was filed praying for t ime by the grand son of the petitioner in the absence of the petitioner. On that date subsequently another notice is stated to have been issued fixing 24.8.2001 , but as per the report of the office peon the family members of the petitioner refused to accept notice. The impugned order does not speaks anything, as to w hether, the said notice was tendered to the petitioner as required under the law and that in the absence of a noticee a notice is to be tendered to the other me mbers of the family living together and if such members refuse to accept the sam e then the notice may be treated as send. The impugned order is silent about th is factual aspect. The Town Committee refrained from appearing in this case inspite of service of notice to highlight the aforesaid factual aspect. On the other hand, the impugned order has got adverse civil consequence upon the petitioner in-as- much-as the allotment of the Room No. 25 in his favour was cancelled by the impu gned order. Before passing of such order the affected persons is to be provided adequate opportunity of hearing. The conscience of the court is not clear as reg ards service of notice properly and effectively as required under the law. In th at view of the matter, the aforesaid order being passed behind the back of the p etitioner, the same stands set aside and quashed. However, quashing of the impug ned order will not wipe out the entire proceeding. The matter is remanded back to the Doomdooma Town Committee for re -hearing on merit by providing opportunity to both the sides. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the petitioner and Respond ent No. 2, both the parties shall appear before the Doomdooma Town Committee on 7-1-2009 to receive further instructions from the Town Committee. The Doomdooma Town Committee shall dispose of the entire matter within a period of one month i .e. on 7.2.2009. With the aforesaid order the writ petition stands allowed to the ext ent as indicated above.