Rajiv Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. D. C. Mukerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. S. Misra, learned Standing Counsel. It has been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that on a fourth notice being issued, the proceedings have been finalized, by means of the order dated 24.5.2003. Thereafter, the State Government has moved a review petition for reviewing the judgment and order dated 24.5.2003, which was rejected by means of the order dated 9.8.2004. Being aggrieved, the State filed an appeal before the Commissioner and vide order dated 25.6.2008, the said appeal was allowed, without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and set aside the order dated 9.8.2004. On coming to know the order dated 9.8.2004, the petitioner filed an application for recall of the ex parte order on 5.8.2008 and vide order dated 9.4.2009, the Additional Commissioner rejected the said application. Being aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal preferred by the State against the order rejecting the review petition is not maintainable. While passing the order dated 25.6.2008, the petitioner has not been afforded opportunity of hearing. Prima facie, a case for interim relief is made out. Till the next date of listing, the operation and implementation of the order dated 25.6.2008 passed by the opposite party No.2 and order dated 9.4.2009 passed by the opposite party No.3 shall be kept in abeyance. List in the month of August, 2009. In the meantime, affidavits may be exchanged between the parties.;