K. A. SWAMI J. ( 1 ) THOUGH this petition is posted for orders, having regard to the fact that it can be disposed of on a short ground it is taken up for final disposal. ( 2 ) IN this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for quashing the order dated 25-7-1984 bearing No. AEE (R) 80/19/84-85 passed by the 4th respondent produced as Annexure-A and the order dated 28-7-1984 passed by the 4th respondent bearing No. AEE (R) PO/ 19/84-85 produced as Annexure-B. The petitioners have also sought for quashing the orders passed by respondents 2 and 3 bearing No. Nil dated 26-8-1984 produced as Annexure-C. They have also sought for quashing the resolution of the Corporation of the City of Bangalora dated 16-10-1985 passed in Subject no. 29 (547) produced as Annexure-E. ( 3 ) THE order dated 25-7-1984 produced as Annexure-A is a provisional order cum notice, provisionally holding that the petitioners have put up on unauthorised construction in the second floor of the premises bearing No. 26/4 situated at 12th Main Road, Shivanahslii, rajajinagar, Bangalore and to show cause why the demolition should not be ordered and further directing them to refrain from proceeding further with the construction work. ( 4 ) THE petitioners did not show any cause. In the very nature of things they could not have shown any cause because the order dated 25-7-1984 was served upon them on 26-7-1984 giving them three days' time to show cause whereas, the order confirming the provisional order came to be passed on 28-7-1984 itself, by respondent-4 directing the petitioners to demolish the first floor and the staircase in the second floor, holding that those constructions were unauthorised. There was an appeal filed by the petitioners against the aforesaid order before the Standing Committee of the Corporation, which by its decision dated 20-2-1985 (Annexure-D) permitted the petitioners to compound and pay the compounding fee of 25 per cent of the construction cost. The petitioners are not aggrieved with this resolution of the Standing Committee. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, there was a reference made by the Commissioner of the Corporation under Section 444 (2) of the karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976 to the Corporation against the decision of the Standing Committee dated 20-2-1985. The petitioners are not aggrieved with this resolution of the Standing Committee. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, there was a reference made by the Commissioner of the Corporation under Section 444 (2) of the karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976 to the Corporation against the decision of the Standing Committee dated 20-2-1985. The Corporation on the basis of the reference made by the commissioner has passed a resolution reversing the decision of the Standing committee and further directing that the unauthorised construction should be demolished. The resolution of the Corporation is produced as Annexure-E. ( 6 ) IN view of the fact that the petitioners have no grievance to make against the decision of the Standing committee dated 20-2-1985, it is not necessary to consider the validity of the order dated 28-7-1984 passed by res- pondent-4 eventhough that order is passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioners to show cause as it is passed even before the expiry of the time allowed to the petitioners for showing cause. ( 7 ) THEY only contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that when the Standing Committee of the Corporation decided the matter in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction permitting the petitioners to compound and pay the compounding fee equivalent to 25% of the construction cost, the Corporation could not have reversed that decision without even affording an opportunity of showing cause to the petitioners and of hearing them. ( 8 ) SRI Casteiino learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Commissioner makes a reference under Section 444 (2) of the Act to the Corporation and the Corporation takes decision under sub-section (2) of Sec. 444 of the Act read with Rule 27 of the Rules of Pto- cedure for the conduct of business of the Corporation and Committees as found in Schedule I to the Act. It is further contended that neither Section 444 (2) of the Act nor Rule 27 of the aforesaid Rules provides for an opportunity being given to the petitioners; therefore tne Corporation is justified in not issuing a notice and not affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. No doubt, sub-section (2) of section 444 of the Act and Rule 27 of the aforesaid Rules do not provide for any such opportunity of hearing afforded or notice being issued to the petitioners. No doubt, sub-section (2) of section 444 of the Act and Rule 27 of the aforesaid Rules do not provide for any such opportunity of hearing afforded or notice being issued to the petitioners. But these provisions which enable the corporation to reverse the decision of the Standing Committee thereby adversely affecting the person in whose favour the Standing Committee has decided, by necessary implication, it must be held to provide for issuing notices and affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned person in whosa favour the Standing Committee has decided. Otherwise it would result in satting- aside the order which is passed in favour of the petitioners without even complying with the basis requirements of principles of natural justice. Our laws do not provide for any such thing. No person could be condemned without affording an opportunity of showing cause and of hearing, and no right or the property or the benefit of any decision rendered in favour of the party can be affected without affording an opportunity of showing cause and of hearing. The requirement as to issuing notice to show cause and affording an opportunity of hearing is implied in sub-section (2) of Section 444 of the Act, as otherwise the Section will be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore* the Corporation ought to have issued notices to the petitioners to show cause as to why the decision of the Standing Committee should not be reversed, stating the ground/s on which the Corporation intended to reverse the decision of the standing Committee. Further, on the cause being shown by the petitioners, the Corporation ought to have afforded an opportunity of hearing also. As no notice to show cause is issued to the petitioners and no opportunity of hearing is afforded to them, the resolution of the Corporation reversing the decision of the Standing Committee cannot be sustained. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms :- (I) Tha resolution dated 16-10- 1s85 passed by the Corporation of the City of Bangalore in Subject No. 29 (547) produced as Annexure-E is hereby quashed. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms :- (I) Tha resolution dated 16-10- 1s85 passed by the Corporation of the City of Bangalore in Subject No. 29 (547) produced as Annexure-E is hereby quashed. (ii) If the Corporation intends to pursue the reference made by the Commissioner against the decision of the standing Committee dated 20-2 1985 in subject No. 646 produced as Annex- ure-D under sub-section (2) of Section 444 of the Act, it shall issue notice to the petitioners stating tha grounds on which the Corporation intends to reverse the decision of the standing Committee and afford sufficient time to the petitioners to show cause and, on the cause being shown by the petitioners afford them an opportunity of hearing and then take a decision in the matter in accordance with law. Till then the respondents are directed not to proceed to demolish the unauthorised construction in question. ( 10 ) SRI Castelino learned Standing counsel for the Corporation is permitted to file his mpmo of appearance on behalf of respondents in six weeks. Writ Petition is Allowed. --- *** --- .