JUDGMENT - CHAPALGAONKAR N.P., J.:---Rule made returnable for with consent. 2. This petition makes a very short grievance that the permission granted to the petitioners Nos. 1,4,5, and 6 to construct a building has been cancelled by Respondent No. 3 without affording an opportunity of hearing. It arises out of the following facts: 3. On 4th May, 1988, the permission under section 45 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, the Act) was granted in favour of Petitioners No. 1, 4, 5 and 6. Accordingly the construction work was started. Subsequently, on 30th January, 1989, respondent No. 3 stayed the operation of the permission and directed the petitioners not to construct the building in accordance with the permission already granted. It is this order which is challenged by the petitioners in this petition. 4. We have heard Mr. B.N. Bajpai, learned Counsel for the petitioners Nos. 1 to 5, Mr. N.K. Kakde, learned Government Pleader for Respondents 1 and 2, Mr. H.T. Joshi learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 and Mr. V.D. Gunale holding for V.G. Sakolkar, learned Advocates for respondent No. 4. 5. The grievance made by Mr. Bajpai before us is that the permission already granted in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled without giving them an opportunity of hearing. Section 51 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, authorises the Planning Authority to revoke or modify permission is respect of development of land already granted under section 45 of the Act. Assuming that the power to revoke or modify permission includes the power to stay, it would necessarily require an opportunity of hearing to be given to a party or person who would be affected by such a stay of the permission. The power of revocation or staying the permission being drastic in nature, the observance of rules of natural justice is a must. Section 51 itself has made a statutory provision incorporating this requirement. The power of revocation or staying the permission being drastic in nature, the observance of rules of natural justice is a must. Section 51 itself has made a statutory provision incorporating this requirement. Sub-section (1) of section 51 of the Act, runs thus: (1) If it appears to a Planning Authority that it is expendient, having regard to the Development plan prepared or under preparation that any permission to development land granted under this Act or any other law, should be revoked or modified, the Planning Authority may, after giving the person concerned an opportunity of being heard against such revocation or modification, by order, revoke or modify the permission to such extent as appears to it to be necessary .....(Emphasis supplied) The provision as to the requirement of hearing to the person affected is mandatory in nature. It is an admitted position that no hearing was given to the petitioners before the impugned order was passed. Mr. H.T. Joshi, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3, submits that for the cancellation of the permission the Corporation cannot be blamed as it had acted on the instructions of the Government. It is true that the order dated 30-1-1989 itself mentions that it was passed on the instructions given by the Collector. Aurangabad, in his letter dated 28-1-1989. We do not understand as to how the Collector or for that matter, the State Government can instruct the Corporation to by pass the statutory provisions under which it has to function. This cannot be a defence for any invalid order which would be passed by the Corporation. 6. It is well settled proposition of law that if the statute provides or lays down that the power vested in the authority should be exercised in a particular manner, it cannot be exercised in any other manner. In (Hukum Chand Shyam Lal v. Union of India and others)1, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 789 the Supreme Court observed thus: "It is well settled that where a power is required to be exercised by a certain authority in a certain way, it should be exercised in that manner or not at all, and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. It is all the more necessary to observe this Rule where power is of a drastic nature and its exercise in a mode other than the one provided will be violative of the fundamental principles of natural justice." In this case the exercise of power by the Planning Authority under section 51 of the Act is subject to the observance of the Principles of natural justice. In other words, observance of the principles of natural justice is a condition precedent for the exercise of power under section 51 of the Act by the Planning Authority. An order which is passed under section 51 of the Act without due observance of the principles of natural justice becomes an order without jurisdiction. We therefore hold that the impugned order dated 30-1-1989 passed by the Commissioner. Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad staying the permission granted in favour of the petitioners is without jurisdiction. We hereby quash the said order. 7. We wish to make it clear that if the Planning Authority has got any objection to the construction of the building, either proposed to be undertaken or completed under the permission already granted by it, it may take such action as may be permissible to it is law after following due procedure. 8. In the result, Rule is made absolute is above terms. No order as to costs. Order accordingly. -----