A. R. TEWARI, J. ( 1 ) THE respondent No. 1 organised the Samiti in terms of Section 16 (3) of the Madbya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act I960 known as 'adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit for Kadadabad Wadi of which the petitioner was nominated as Adhyaksh in exercise of the powers conferred on him by the order of the department of the Government. After several months, the respondent No 1 issued an amendment order by which the order constituting the aforesaid samiti was cancelled and the Managing committee in charge immediately before the aforesaid order was revived and brought back to life- Aggrieved by this order of cancellation and revival of the previous committee the petitioner had 61ed this writ petition for appropriate reliefs. ( 2 ) BY an amendment, the samiti, brought back to life by the aforesaid order, was impleaded as respondent No. 2. ( 3 ) ON consent of the parties, the petition was taken up for final hearing. I have heard counsel for the petitioner Government Advocate for respondent No. 1 and counsel for respondent No. 2. ( 4 ) THE counsel for the petitioner submitted that administrative action is required to be supported by reason. According to him, the order impugned in this writ petition is benefit of reasons and is also vitiated on the ground that the petitioner and other mentbers were not afforded any opportunity of hearing before cancellation. ( 5 ) THE counsel has placed reliance on 1985 JLJ 550 (Hargovind Tamrakar v. State of M. P. and Ors ) and 1988 JLJ 79 (Mohd Karim Khan and Ors. v. Shyam Sunder Srivastava and On ) According to the counsel for the petitioner, the order is not based on any rational and relevant principles and suffers from vice of arbitrariness. He, therefore, prays for quashment of the order. ( 6 ) THE Government Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and counsel for respondent No 2 support the order. However, it is not disputed that the order of cancellation was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other affected persons. He, therefore, prays for quashment of the order. ( 6 ) THE Government Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and counsel for respondent No 2 support the order. However, it is not disputed that the order of cancellation was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other affected persons. ( 7 ) IN AIR 1990 SC 1480 (Charan Lai Sahu v. Union of India), it is held as under"audi Sitaram Parties is a highly effective rule advised by the Courts to ensure that a statutory authority arrives at a just decision and it is calculated to act as a healthy check on the abuse of misuse of power. The rules of natural justice can operate only in areas not covered by any law validity made. The general principle as distinguished from an absolute rule of unirform application is that whose a statute does not in terms exclude this rule of prior hearing but contemplates a post decisional hearing amounting to a full review of the original order an merits then such a statute would be construed as excluding the Audi Sitaram parties rule at the pre-decisional stage If the statute conferring the power is silent with regard to the giving of a pre-decisional hearing to the person affected the administrative decision after post-decisional hearing was good. "( 8 ) IN AIR 1991 SC 637 (Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U. P.) it is held as under"the Constitution does not envisage or permit unfairness or unreasonableness in State action in any sphere of its activity contrary to the professed ideals in the preamble. Exclusion of art. 14 in contractual matters is not permissible in constitutional scheme. The scope and permissible grounds of judicial review in such matters and the relief which may be available are different matters but that does not justify the view of its total exclusion. Even assuming that it is necessary to import the concept of presence of some public element' in a state action to attract Art. 14 and permit judicial review it can be said that the ultimate impact of all actions of the State or a public body being undoubtedly on public Interest, the requisite public element for this purpose is present also in contractual matters. Therefore it would be difficult and unrealistic to exclude the State actions in contractual matters, after the contract has been made, from the purview of judicial review to test its validity on the anvil of Art. 14 Thus the wide sweep of Art. 14 undoubtedly takes within its fold the impugned circular issued by the State of U P. in exercise of Its executive power, irrespective of the precise nature of appointment of the Government Counsel in the districts and the other rights, contractual or statutory, which the appointees may have " ( 9 ) LORD Denning put it elegently in Screen v. Amalgamated Engineering union ; (1971) 1 All ER 148 and Supreme Court stated in Khudi Ram's case (1975) 2 SCR 835 ; AIR 1975 SC 550 that in a Government of laws "there is nothing like unfettered discretion immune from judicial review-ability. " fairness founded on reason, is the essence of the guarantee epitomised in arts. 14 and 16 (1 ). If this has been exercised Improperly or mistakenly so as to impinge unjustly on legitimate rights or interests of the subject then courts must so declare. The Courts stand between the executive and the subject alert, alert to see that discretionary power is not exceeded or misused, lord Atkin highlighted that aspect. Liversidege v. Anderson (1942) ac 206 is instructive and indicator of the amplitude of the power available with the Courts. " ( 10 ) THE previous committee it now in charge and in operation since oct. 1993. The question is as to what order should be passed in this writ petition, in the interests of justice. The statute is however, silent with regard to the Court of a prc-decisional hearing to the persons affected. However, hearing is an effective rule indicated by decisions so as to ensure fairness and justness when pre-decisional hearing is not specifically provided for post-decisiona1 hearing may be given. ( 11 ) IN AIR 1990 SC 1984 (S. N. Mukherjes v. Union of India) it is held as under :"in view of the expending horison of the principles of natural justice the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. " ( 12 ) IN the result although I am not quashing the order of cancellation, i direct that respondent No. 1 shall hear the petitioner and other members of the committee as was constituted as also respondent No. 2 with regard to propriety of the cancellation of the order and revival of respondent No. 2 immediately and pass appropriate fresh order in conformity with law apd principles of natural justice within a period of three weeks from today. Respondent No. 1 is further directed to pass reasoned order in this behalf. ( 13 ) WITH the aforesaid directions, this petition stands finally disposed of without any order as to costs. Petition disposed. .