CWP No.2204 of 2007. 19.06.2008 Present: Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate, for respondents No.6 to 11. The petitioners have approached this Court after being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13th November, 2007 passed by the HP State Administrative Tribunal whereby certain directions have been issued to the State without affording any opportunity to the petitioners, which is in violation of the principle of natural justice. In support the learned Counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another, AIR 1978 SC 597. Learned Counsel vehemently argued that in case the interference is not shown in the judgment of the Administrative Tribunal, it would unnecessarily open the Pandora box. Accordingly, the interest of justice will suffice if the State Administrative Tribunal shall give an opportunity to the petitioners so as the principles of natural justice are not violated. The petitioners who are three in number undertake to appear before the learned Tribunal on the date fixed. However, it would be open for the respondents-applicants before the learned Tribunal to serve the other two respondents before the Tribunal through their Head of the Department. In the light of the above, we quash the order and judgment passed by the learned Tribunal and remand back the matter to the learned Tribunal to enable the learned Tribunal to afford proper opportunity of hearing to the private respondents. We hope and trust that sincere endeavour would be made by the Tribunal to decide the matter within a period of three months in accordance with law. -2- Learned Counsel for the petitioners undertakes that the petitioners would be filing their response within a period of two weeks before the learned Tribunal. Let the matter be listed before the Tribunal on 30th June, 2008. The parties shall appear on the said date. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. June 19, 2008. ( Rajiv Sharma ), J. (rc)