S.N.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) NONE appears for the respondents nor there is any request of pass over, though the name of Sri Siddharth Dhaon has been shown in the cause list. Heard Sri J.N. Mathur for the appellants. This special appeal has been filed against the order dated 8.11.06 passed on the Review Petition No. 267 of 2006, on the ground that the review petition has been disposed of on day one without issuing any notice to the appellants and in that order, certain directions have been issued which are binding and run beyond the ambit of consideration as was directed in the original order passed by the learned Single Judge. It appears that the respondents filed a writ petition claiming regularization of the labourers under the departmental system, which writ petition was disposed of on day one with the consent of the parties' counsel with the direction that the representation of the respondents be decided in accordance with law. The following operative portion would be relevant for the controversy: "On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 states that the petitioners are not co-operating and submitting the documents and particular of the labourers and as such, the same could not be verified from the record of the Food Corporation of India and if the petitioner co-operates with the management and furnished the requisite information, the management will complete the verification expeditiously. Under the above facts and circumstances, without going into the merit of the case, the writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction that in case the petitioners furnish the requisite information to the management within a period of ten days from today, the management will consider and decide the matter of the petitioners within a period of six weeks thereafter." The respondents thereafter moved an application for review of the said order. The learned Single Judge disposed of the review petition on day one without issuing any notice to the appellants. The learned Single Judge has also given certain directions and has interpreted various circulars, provisions and the rules, saying that they should be given effect to. In our opinion, the order passed on review petition cannot be sustained simply on the ground that it was passed without issuing any notice to the appellants, who were already impleaded as opposite parties in the writ petition and they were not heard before modifying the order originally passed. The order under review thus, cannot be sustained, which is hereby set aside. The review petition may be listed again before the learned Single Judge, who may consider and dispose of the same after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The special appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.;