D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a Housing Co-operative society and colonizer within the meaning of Madhya Pradesh Vimirdishta bhrashta Acharan Niwaran Adhiniyam, 1982 and the Madhya Pradesh Vinirdishta bhrashta Acharan Niwaran Rules, 1982 framed there under (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and the 'rules' ). ( 2 ) THE Petitioner was granted a colonizer's licence in accordance with rule 5 of the Rules for developing a colony on 5. 10 acres of land in village tehsil Burhanpur. Copy of the Licence dated 13-11-1983 is filed as aunexure B. ( 3 ) THE Petitioner got the land developed, obtained necessary sanction and clearance from Municipal Corporation. Improvement Trust and Town and Country Planning Department, Burhanpur and its map for colonization was also sanctioned, a copy of which is on record as Annexure L. The Petitioner applied for permission to undertake the work of establishment of colony in accordance with Rule 10 of the Rules and since no reply was received within a period of 90 days from the receipts of that intimation for permissions, the contentions of the petitioner in this Petition is that permission would be presumed or deemed to have been granted in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules, ( 4 ) THE respondent received a notice dated 13-5-1988 (Annexure E) to show cause why the colonisation licence be not cancelled for the alleged breaches of the conditions of the licence. By the aforesaid show cause notice sent on 13-5-1988, the petitioner was directed to enter appearance in the office of the Collector on 16-8-1988. On 16-8-1988 the Vice-President of the petitioner-Society appeared before the Collector and filed an application in writing requesting for fifteen days time to file reply to the show cause notice. It was stated that the President of the Society being out of station, the reply could not be filed within the short time allowed. The Collector, Khandwa by the impugned order dated 17-5-1988 (Annexure H) cancelled the licence for the following two branches alleged to have been committed by the petitioner-Society : (1) According to the approved lay out no vacant land was kept reserved for public use and it was not fenced. (2) No vacant land was kept reserved for rehabilitation of slum dwellers. (2) No vacant land was kept reserved for rehabilitation of slum dwellers. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order of cancellation of Licence, the petitioner-Society has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. During pendency of this writ petition, in order to ascertain the actual position, this Court passed an order on 23-4-1991 for actual spot inspection, measurement and demarcation of the lands, through approved surveyor/architect/valuar or by any Revenue Authority. Pursuant to the above order, the land was demarcated and demarcation report has been submitted in the case, against which the parties have made their written comments. The present position as reported now is that the vacant area left for public use has been fenced. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised several legal and factual grounds against the order of cancellation of the petitioner's licences, but we are not going into the same and propose to dispose of the petition on its main submission that the petitioner was not afforded any reasonable opportunity to show cause against the notice of cancellation. It may be noticed that the show cause notice for cancellation of the licence was issued on 13-5-1938 and the case was fixed for hearing and personal appearance on 16-5-1988. On 16-5-1988 Vice-President of the petitioner-Society requested for time to file written reply. The time was not granted and on 17-5-1988 the impugned order of cancellation was passed. The Collector in cancelling the licence has exercised powers under Rule 8 of the Rules which reads as under : ( 6 ) CANCELLATION of Licences The Collector on his own motion or on information from any source and for reasons to be recorded in writing, may cancel the licence for contravention of any of the terms, conditions or restrictions of licence : provided that no licenc e shall be cancelled unless an opportunity of being heard is granted to the licences. ( 7 ) THE power of cancellation, therefore, cannot be exercised without grant of opportunity of being heard given to the licences. It is implied that opportunity of being heard should be effective and reasonable. On the date the case was fixed for personal appearances, the Vice-President, on behalf of the Society, did appear and requested for reasonable time so that the President who was out of station may return and submit a reply on behalf of the society. It is implied that opportunity of being heard should be effective and reasonable. On the date the case was fixed for personal appearances, the Vice-President, on behalf of the Society, did appear and requested for reasonable time so that the President who was out of station may return and submit a reply on behalf of the society. We are clearly of the opinion that in turning down such a reasonable request, the Collector, acted hastily and thus denied opportunity of effcctive hearing to the petitioner-Society. The case of the petitioner-Society in this Court is that there was an area vacant and reserved both for public use and rehabilitation of slum dwellers, which is apparent from the demarcation report submitted in this case. The fencing work had also been done and has been re-done according to the Society. The petitioner could have, therefore, satisfied the Collector on being granted a reasonable opportunity against cancellation that there was no breach and in case there were such breaches have been remedied within the time allowed by the authority. ( 8 ) WE are, therefore, of the opinion that on this short ground of denial of reasonable opportunity for the petitioner-Society to show cause against cancellation, the impugned order of cancellation of licence is liable to be quashed. ( 9 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 17-5-1988 (Annexure H) cancelling the licence of the petitioner quashed. Under the circumstances, we do not think it fit to nuke any order as to costs. The security amount, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed. .