- (1.) RULE, returnable forthwith. Respondents appear and waive service.
(2.) THERE is no dispute that the impugned orders dated 15th May, 1990 (Exhibit C) and 16th May, 1990 (Exhibit D) respectively were passtd without any notice, hearing and opportumty to the Petitioner-Society which has been in existence right from 1970 onwards all these years Even so, the impugned orders were passed behind the back of the Petitioner-Society and having serious adverse consequence on the business of the Society. And all this despite rules, regulations and resolutions of the State Government itself Indeed, over a year back when a similar matte came before the high Court, the High Court by its judgment dated 21st April 1989 in Writ Petition No 1180 9f 1989 laid down certain guidelines. It, however, appears that despite the same, orders are some time passed at the behest of one or the other party to the serious prejudice of persons such as the Petitioner herein and without any notice or opportunity to them. The impugned orders are liable to be set aside on this short ground.
(3.) OUR attention was invited to judgment dated 2nd April 1990 of the supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1739 of 1990. The facts and circum-stances therein are clearly distinguishable from the instant one. In the said case, it was in pursuance of the High Court's direction that the Hon'ble minister heard the matter passed order and gave persons in support thereof. This again was challenged before the High Court but in vain. The said rulug has no application to the present case, wherein, as indicated, the impugned orders were behind the back of and without notice and opportu-nity to the Petitioner.;