Saiyed Haider Abbas Raza, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged legality or validity of the action of respondent who has cancelled the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner No. 1 as Sarvakar of petitioner No. 2. The matter pertains to Shiv Ling installed in the Shiva Temple situate in premises No. 221, Old Bairhana Allahabad. It has been averred that its antiquities are more than hundred years old situate at a public place and as such is covered by the provisions of Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. The petitioner No. 1 being Sarvakar of the Shiv Temple applied to the respondent for registration under Section 16 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 for the grant of a certificate of registration of the Shiv Ling. The respondent on being satisfied issued a certificate of registration to the petitioner No. 1 as required by Section 16(3) of the Antiquities and Art Treasurers Act, 1972, but suddenly on 30th June, 1997, the petitioner No. 1 received a letter dated 23rd June, 1997 written by the respondent to the petitioner No. 1 intimating that the registration issued earlier has been cancelled. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that aforesaid order was passed without reasonable opportunity afforded to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 16(4) of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act. The Section 16(4) of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act 1972 is being reproduced hereunder: - - Section 16(4) No application made under this section shall be rejected unless the applicant has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. On perusal of Section 16(4) of the aforesaid Act it reveals that no application made under this section shall be rejected unless applicant has been given reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter.
(2.) EVEN if that provision would have not been there it is well settled that whenever there is lis in the orders meaning thereby that substantive right or interest of a party has been adversely affected that right can be taken away only by providing an opportunity to the parties to show cause but in the instant case it was not done. As the question involved is too trivial to drag on unnecessarily before this Court, hence after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel, I issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.6.1997 passed by the respondent, but this order in no way affect the right of the respondent to act in accordance with law. In the light of above observations, this writ petition is allowed.;