A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is holding license issued under the provisions of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing Control and Stock Declaration) Order 1981 as dealer in kerosene. On certain allegations that he had committed breach of conditions of the license and had contravened the relevant provisions of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 and the Control Order issued thereunder proceedings were initiated against him. The original authority ordered to cancel the license and passed order imposing penalty upon the petitioner. The order passed by the original authority has been confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority. The petitioner preferred revision application before the Government. The same has been rejected without affording. an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner has been informed accordingly by letter dated 1/03/1990 Hence the petition. ( 2 ) CAUSE 12 of the Control Order provides for revision to the Government. Clause 12 reads as under:12 Revision: The State Government may call for and examine the record of any proceedings of licensing authority or the Collector or the Food and Civil Supplies Controller Ahmedabad City as the case may be for the purpose of Satisfying itself as to the legality of property of any order passed in such proceedings or as to the regularity of such proceedings and if it shall Appear to the state Government that such order or proceedings should be modified annulled or reversed it may pass such order thereon as it deems fit. Provided that no order shall is made under this clause unless the person who Is likely to be affected thereby has been given a reasonable opportunity of Stating his case. It is contended that there is no specific provision in Clause 12 for affording an Opportunity of being heard. Moreover the Government could pave called for the papers of the case suo motu and could have examined the papers. In that case also it would not have been necessity for the Government to adored an opportunity of being heard to the petition. ( 3 ) THE contention cannot be accepted. Absence of specific provision containing principles of natural justice in the rule dose not mean that the legislature has intended to exclude the observance of principles of natural justice. On the contrary the legislative intent is manifest in the proviso. ( 3 ) THE contention cannot be accepted. Absence of specific provision containing principles of natural justice in the rule dose not mean that the legislature has intended to exclude the observance of principles of natural justice. On the contrary the legislative intent is manifest in the proviso. The proviso enjoins duty upon the Government to afford an opportunity of being heard to the person who is likely to be affected by the order. Such a person is required to be afforded an opportunity of making representation and stating his case. Thus if the entire provision of Clause 12 is read in its proper context the contention that before rejecting the revision application the Government is not required to afford an opportunity of being heard cannot be accepted. On the contrary as indicated hereinabove the proviso by necessary implication enjoins duty upon the Government to afford an opportunity of being heard to the person who has filed revision and if the order that is to be passed in the revision is against the person who filed the revision before passing such order the person who has filed the revision application is required to be afforded an Opportunity of stating his case. Similarly even when the Government exercises its suo motu powers and on examining the papers if the Government intends to pass any order which is likely to affect any person then also such person is required to be afforded an opportunity of being heard. ( 4 ) IN this connection reference may be made to a decision of the Division Bench of this High Court rendered in Special Civil Application no. 4903 of 1989 and other allied matter decided on 20/10/1989 (M/s. TORRENT LABORATORIES PVT. LTD. AHMEDABAD V. UNION OF INDIA REPORTED IN 1990 (2) GLR 1017 ). Therein the question arose as regards the interpretation of the provisions of Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules 1944 as it stood prior to the amendment before 6/10/1998 Therein there was no specific- provision containing principles of natural justice and observance thereof. Therefore it was contended that the provision of the Rule was contrary to the principles of natural justice and therefore illegal and void. Therefore it was contended that the provision of the Rule was contrary to the principles of natural justice and therefore illegal and void. Repelling the contention the Division Bench has held as follows (Para 8) the absence of specific provision containing principles of neutral justice in the rule does not mean that the provisions of the rule excludes the observance of principle of natural justice. The principal of natural justice is nothing but fair play in action. No one needs direction from the Parliament that he is required to act fairly. Any one be he an executive officer or a judicial officer who has been conferred with discretionary power and who is charged with a duty to act judicial or impartially Is bound to act fairly. Therefor the provisions as regards applicability principles of natural Justice has got to be read into the provision of the rule. unless it is shown that the legislature has expressly or by necessary implication excluded the observance of principles of natural Justice. In the instant case also there is nothing in the scheme of the entire Control Order or the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 to indicate that the legislature has either expressly or by necessary implication intended to exclude the observance of the principles of natural justice. Therefore the contention that since there is no express provision for affording an opportunity of being heard the Government could take decision without calling upon the party to state its case has no substance and the same has got to be rejected. In shove view of the matter on this short ground alone the petition is required to be allowed. ( 5 ) IN the result the petition is allowed. The order passed by the Government produced at Annexure E to the petition dated 1/03/1990 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Government with direction to decide the revision application in accordance with law and in the light of the principles laid down and the observations made in this judgment. Rule made absolute accordingly. (KMV) rule made absolute. .