M. Katju, J. - (1.) -This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 6.10.2001 passed by the District Supply Officer, Firozabad, and Annexure-9 to the writ petition.
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners applied against the advertisement for allotment of fair price shop. The Selection Committee headed by the District Magistrate made the selection and the petitioners were all selected candidates and they were issued formal orders dated 27.3.2001 as stated in para 3 of the petition. The petitioners, have alleged that they complied with the requirements of the appointment orders. However, as stated in para 5 of the petition, despite the orders of allotment and compliance of all the formalities the respondents failed to execute the agreement and supply of commodities for sale despite several requests by the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court in which by order dated 13.8.2001, Annexure-8 to the petition it directed the petitioners to make a representation. Accordingly, the petitioners made representation on 25.8.2001 but the District Supply Officer cancelled the appointments vide impugned order dated 6.10.2001. Several points have been taken in this petition and it is not necessary to go into all of them. This writ petition can be allowed on the short point that the impugned order was passed without giving opportunity of hearing. This averment has been made in paras 9 and 14 of the writ petition. These averments have not been specifically denied in the counter-affidavit and hence are deemed to be correct. The impugned orders have civil consequences and hence can only by passed after affording hearing to the petitioner vide State of Orissa v. Binapani, AIR 1967 SC 1269.
(3.) FOR the reasons given above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 6.10.2001 is quashed. However, it is open to the authority concerned to pass fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.;