ORDER 1. Special leave granted. 2. Heard counsel on both sides. The grievance of the appellant is that no notice was served on him when the High Court heard the writ petition filed by the respondent and decided it by its order of January 16, 1989. The appellant filed an application for review on the ground that he was not served with the notice. The High Court did not record any finding on whether the appellant was served in the writ petition or not. On the other hand, the High Court observed that the order-sheet was missing and since the notice was served on the opposite parties 1, 2 and 3, (the appellant being the opposite party No. 4), "it is difficult to say that opposite party No. 4 Ram Jawahir was not aware of the fact" and rejected the application by the impugned order of August 10, 1989. It is regrettable to note that when the appellant had made a specific grievance that he had not been served with the notice of the writ petition and when the High Court was not sure whether the appellant was served of the notice or not, the High Court should have proceeded to reject the application. The appellant was thus neither heard in the writ petition nor was his review petition decided according to law. The impugned decision in the writ petition is, therefore, clearly illegal being in breach of the principles of natural justice. We, therefore, set aside the orders dated August 10, 1989 and January 16, 1989 passed by the High Court, and remand the matter to the High Court for a fresh hearing and decision by giving the appellant a proper opportunity to represent his case. The matter would be heard by the High Court on November 22, 1993. The appellant should remain present in the High Court before the senior-most Judge at the Lucknow Bench of the High Court at 11.00 a.m. on November 22, 1993, The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs. For Citation: 1995 Supp(1) SCC 187 Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.