Rajiv Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 30.1.2009 passed by the State Government in an appeal preferred under Section 12 of the U. P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979. It has been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the appeal has been preferred assailing the order passed by the Entertainment Officer, whereby he has levied tax on the basis of the number of users. He further submitted that on the date fixed for hearing of the appeal, he has been informed that on account of death of the mother of the Entertainment Inspector, who was conducting the case on behalf of the state, the case will be adjourned and as such, the petitioner's pairokar has gone to attend another appeal in the department of Sugar cane and left behind the petitioner's husband that as soon as the appellate authority holds Court, she may inform her husband, but in spite of the fact, the appellate authority has passed the order showing the petitioner as absent during the course of hearing. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not been heard by the appellate authority. Natural justice is the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition and conscience to be ranked as fundamental. The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice. Besides, natural justice is an inseparable ingredient of fairness and reasonableness. It is even said that the principles of natural justice must be read into unoccupied interstices of the statute, unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in iota of cases has reiterated that a person who is put to any harm, he shall first be afforded adequate opportunity of showing cause. In D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries; (1993) 3 SCC 259 the Supreme Court while laying emphasis on affording opportunity by the authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action held that orders affecting the civil rights or resulting civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court concluded as under: - "The procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood would be liable to be tested on the anvil of Article 14. The procedure prescribed by a statute or statutory rule or rules or orders affecting the civil rights or result in civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. Article 14 has a pervasive procedural potency and versatile quality, equalitarian in its soul and principles of natural justice are part of Article 14 and the procedure prescribed by law must be just, fair and reasonable, and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive." In National Building Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan; (1998) 7 SCC 66, it was observed by the Apex Court that a person is entitled to judicial review, if he is able to show that the decision of the public authority affected him of some benefit or advantage which in the past he had been permitted to enjoy and which he legitimately expected to be permitted to continue to enjoy either until he is informed the reasons for withdrawal and the opportunity to comment on such reasons. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the State Government dated 30.1.2009 is hereby quashed and the appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a maximum period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.;