A. S. QURESHI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner herein challenges the order dated 22-3-78 passed by the Special Secretary Revenue Department Government of Gujarat. The Special Secretary has rejected the petitioners revision solely on the ground that there was considerable delay in filing the revision application. He did not go into the merits of the case. ( 2 ) MR. A. J. Patel the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had no knowledge or information about the impugned decision of the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. dated 9th February 1963 According to him the Special Secretary has proceeded on the presumption that the copy of the order must have been sent to the petitioner as there is a mention that such a copy may be sent to the petitioner. Mr. Patel has urged that the petitioner never received the intimation with regard to the said order and there is nothing on record to show that he was in fact given intimation regarding this decision. The Special Secretary has held that there is no cogent evidence to believe that the petitioner was not intimated. Relying on the provisions in the Bombay General Clauses Act he has presumed that the intimation allegedly sent by the Post must have been delivered in due course and on that ground he has rejected the petition on this technical ground without going into the merits at all. Where there is a question of giving a person an opportunity to be heard it is not right to say that an intimation was sent by Post and then rely on the provisions of the Bombay General Clauses Act and presume that the intimation sent by Post must have been delivered in due course. There must be convincing material on record to show that the person concerned was in fact intimated and that the person concerned has even after the knowledge or intimation chosen to remain absent. In absence of such convincing material on record it must be held that the person concerned has not been given an opportunity to be heared. In this case Mr. In absence of such convincing material on record it must be held that the person concerned has not been given an opportunity to be heared. In this case Mr. J. M. Patel the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 is not in a position to show anything from the record that the petitioner was in fact served with a copy of the aforesaid order or that he had received intimation regarding the aforesaid decision dated 9-2-63 of the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. Hence the impugned order of the Special Secretary rejecting the petitioners revision on the ground of delay deserves to be set aside. A writ of certiorari is directed to be issued quashing and setting aside the impugned order of the Special Secretary Revenue Department Government of Gujarat. The Special Secretary is directed to hear the appeal on merits give the parties concerned an opportunity to present their respective cases and to dispose it of according to law as expeditiously as possible. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. .