JUDGMENT 1. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Admittedly, a house of the appellant was given on rent to the Social Welfare Department Rajasthan, Jaipur for running a hostel. Initially, rent was fixed at Rs. 140/-per month. However, in July, 1986, additional constructions & renovations were made by the appellant in the said house and he invested a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on this count. The Public Works Department assessed the revised rental value at Rs. 860/- per month and the tenant-department agreed to make the payment of the rent at Rs. 860/- and a sanction was issued vide order dated 203.90 (Annexure-2) by which it was ordered that the rent may be paid w.e.f. 1.8.1986 at the rate of Rs. 860/- per month. However, the rent was not paid and subsequently by another order dated 293.1990 (Annex. 9), earlier sanction (Ann. 2) was withdrawn. No reason was given for withdrawing that sanction, with the result that no rent has been paid to the petitioner-appellant. The appellant filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2746/1992 before this Court. The writ petition was heard by a learned Single Judge who vide his judgment/order dated 17.3.1993 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had an equally efficacious remedy available by way of filing civil suit in respect of the dispute in question. 3. It may be mentioned that the respondents who are represented by the Dy. Govt. Advocate did not choose to file any reply to the writ petition. No reasons were given for cancellation of earlier sanction (Ann. 2) in the order (Ann. 9). In the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that a regular suit could not be an equally efficacious remedy. Civil suits are not heard and disposed of for many years. The facts averred by the appellant were not controverted. Learned Dy. Govt. Advocate could not refute that contention.We fail to see how a regular civil suit can be equally an efficacious remedy in the facts and circumstances of the case particularly, when the respondents did not even file a reply and did not care to refute the allegations of the appellant. 4. We may state here that respondents have not shown, how they could unilaterally cancel the sanction earlier issued by them, which was binding on them. 4. We may state here that respondents have not shown, how they could unilaterally cancel the sanction earlier issued by them, which was binding on them. There was no authority under law under which such a sanction could be unilaterally withdrawn without hearing the appellant. 5. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the judgment/order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. We, therefore, accept this appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and accept the writ petition and quash the order of the respondent No. 2 (Ann. 9) whereby earlier sanction (Ann. 2) issued in favour of the petitioner-appellant was withdrawn and cancelled. The respondents shall now pay the rent as also arrears thereof to the petitioner-appellant in accordance with the sanction (Ann. 2) w.e.f. the date the rent was due under this sanction (Ann. 2) w.e.f. 1.8.1986. The writ petition of the appellant-petitioner is thus allowed to the aforesaid extent. The appellant shall be paid arrears of rent by the respondents within a period of three months from today failing which, the arrears shall carry interest @ 18% p.a. from 1.8.1986. The costs of the writ and appeal are assessed at Rs. 1,000/ 6. In case the appellant is not paid his arrears and respondents are made to pay interest, respondents shall be entitled to recover the amount of such interest from the defaulting employees of the respondents.Appeal and Writ Petition Allowed to Extent as Above Stated. *******