JUDGMENT A. R. TIWARI, J. - This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a firm constituted under the instrument of partnership deed dated October 9, 1986, and carries on business of manufacture/purchase/repacking and selling of edible oils and consumer products in its own brands (annexure P1). It secured registration from the District Industries Centre and also obtained registration as a small-scale industry. It applied for eligibility certificate to obtain tax concessions/exemptions. The requisite certificate was granted on October 7, 1987, effective from April 27, 1987 (annexure P5) in terms of the notification dated October 16, 1986. The respondent No. 2 (Industries Commissioner) passed the order on April 27, 1989 (annexure P8) on the basis of the decision taken in the meeting dated April 26, 1989 of respondent No. 3 (District Level Committee) cancelling the certificate with effect from April 27, 1987. This order (annexure P8) is challenged in this position. Respondents have filed the return in oppugnation. The Division Bench of this Court passed an order staying the operation of annexure P8. I have heard both the sides. The counsel for the petitioner submitted as under : (a) The aforesaid order is passed without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing. (b) The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had agreed to obtain the opinion from Law Department. This opinion was then obtained behind the back of the petitioner and order was passed without hearing the petitioner after this stage. The counsel therefore, submits that the order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Additional Advocate-General submitted that opportunity of hearing was given. In my view the opportunity is not reasonable because no opportunity was afforded after receipt of the opinion from the Law Department. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case reported in [1995] 96 STC 125 (MP) (Vishal Pharmaceutical Laboratories v. General Manager, District Industries Centre). There is thus flaw in the decision-making process. In AIR 1989 SC 997 (State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh) : "Judicial review under article 226 cannot be converted into an appeal. Judicial review is directed, not against the decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision-making process. There is thus flaw in the decision-making process. In AIR 1989 SC 997 (State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh) : "Judicial review under article 226 cannot be converted into an appeal. Judicial review is directed, not against the decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision-making process. When the issues raised in judicial review is whether a decision is vitiated by taking into account irrelevant, or neglecting to take into account of relevant factors or is so manifestly unreasonable that no reasonable authority, entrusted with the power in question could reasonably have made such a decision, the judicial review of the decision-making process includes examination, as a matter of law, of the relevance of the factors." In view of the aforesaid position of facts and law I find that the order, annexure P8, is not sustainable in law. Accordingly I find it improper to go into the merits of the matter. Instead I direct the concerning authority to hear the petitioner in this regard and pass appropriate orders with reasons by February 28, 1995. Till fresh order, the interim order passed by this Court earlier shall remain operative. This petition is thus disposed of finally in terms indicated above, but without any order as to costs. Writ petition disposed of.