Judgment R.R. Yadav, J.-A learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated 8-8-199 1 directed this petition to be listed for final disposal at order stage on 10-9-1991. This is how this case is posted before me for final disposal at order stage, 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the demand of Rs. 15,827.73 raised by the notice Annexure-13 to the writ petition on the ground inter alia that the orders dated 28-7-1983 and 9-9-1983 are illegal. 3. According to the petitioner, aforesaid orders fixing the various prices are also beyond the statutory powers of the State Government. According to the petitioner the State Government is entitled only to fix the sale price and no other, amount can be statutorily fixed under the inherent power under Clause 10 of the Cement Control Order or any other power which may be exercised by the State Government in that behalf 4. According to the averments made in writ petition, Sub-clause (2) of Clause 10 of the Cement Control Order provides that consideration for fixing the maximum price which shall be given due regard to (i) the price fixed under Clause 8, (ii) to handling including charges in respect of packing and containers and transport charges, (iii) godown charges, (iv) stockist margin of profit, (v) local taxes, if any, and (vi) additional road transport charges were allowed. It is admitted by the petitioners himself in his writ petition that the State Government fixes the maximum price (retail) after considering the aforesaid factors. 5. After service of show cause notice the respondents have filed a detailed reply denying the averments made in the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also filed rejoinder affidavit to the reply filed on behalf of the respondents. 6. No one is present either on behalf of the petitioner or on behalf of the answering respondents. 7. I have critically examined the averments made in the writ petition, in the reply as well as rejoinder filed by the petitioner. 8. Before I enter into merits of the case it would be pertinent to mention that the petitioner is seeking a relief for quashing the demand of Rs. 15,827.73 vide notice Annexure-13 to the writ petition. A close scrutiny of Annexure-13 of the writ petition reveals that it does not relate to demand created about the afore-said amount. 8. Before I enter into merits of the case it would be pertinent to mention that the petitioner is seeking a relief for quashing the demand of Rs. 15,827.73 vide notice Annexure-13 to the writ petition. A close scrutiny of Annexure-13 of the writ petition reveals that it does not relate to demand created about the afore-said amount. Even in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner the mistake was not regretted. As a matter of fact Annexure-14 for which no prayer has been made to quash seems to be a notice creating demand of Rs. 15,827.73. A scrutiny of even Annexure- 14 reveals that neither it is readable nor it represents the correct state of affairs. Even the period for which the aforesaid demand is created, has not been clearly mentioned in Annexure- 14. 9. In my considered opinion whenever a writ petition is filed invoking the equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, every petitioner is supposed to come with clean averments made in the writ petition with annexure which are readable. 10. Now I pass on about the merit of the present writ petition for which foundation has been laid by the petitioner in Para 10 of the writ petition to the effect that Sub-clause (2) of Clause 10 of the Cement Control Order provides considerations for fixing the maximum price which are enumerated six in number which had already been quoted in earlier part of this Judgment . 11. The answering respondents have filed a detailed reply of Para 10 of the writ petition categorically stating therein that in pursuance of Clause 10 of the Cement Control Order the State Government has issued a notification No. 43(3)/FAlPolicy/83 dated 28-7-1983 by which it has fixed the commission and freight charges admissible to the dealers. The said notification is marked as Annexure- Rh to the reply. It is specifically stated in Para 10 of the reply that since the petitioner’s godown/shop is situated within 50 kms. from the Chittorgarh Cement Factory, Rs. 25/-per tonne has been allowed to him for freight charges. By this notification the petitioner/dealer is paid Rs. 20/-per torme as commission for unloading, sticking charges, godown rent and profit etc. The uniform selling price is fixed by the State Government. from the Chittorgarh Cement Factory, Rs. 25/-per tonne has been allowed to him for freight charges. By this notification the petitioner/dealer is paid Rs. 20/-per torme as commission for unloading, sticking charges, godown rent and profit etc. The uniform selling price is fixed by the State Government. The quota for lifting cement from the factory is allotted by the non-petitioner/State agency to whom power is delegated under the Rules. The petitioner being a licensee purchaser the cement from the factory on the basis of quota allotted to him on the price fixed by the Government of India. The uniform retail selling price throughout the State of Rajasthan is fixed by the State Government. All proceeds after sale of particular quantity of cement after deducting the amount paid in the factory by the dealer for that quantity of cement and the commission Rs. 20/-per metric tonne and freight charges (transportation charges) @ Rs. 25/-per metric tonne and local taxes, if any, the balance is to be deposited in the State Government as equalisation charges. The method of calculation is also disclosed in Para 10 of the reply filed on behalf of the respondents which is not being reproduced in order to maintain brevity. 12. A careful scrutiny of the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner reveals from Para 8(c) wherein it is admitted that there is basis for creating the demand of Rs. 15,827,73 to the petitioner Annexure- Rh which is admittedly issued by the State Government in exercise of its power under Clause 10 of the Cement Control Order, therefore, there is a basis for issuing the demand notice against the petitioner by the respondents. 13. When Annexure- Rh issued by the State Government in exercise of power under Clause 10 of the Cement Control Order is made known to the petitioner then he started to allege in his rejoinder that the aforesaid notification Annexure- Rh is wholly void, arbitrary and deserves to be quashed. At this place, it would be pertinent to mention that no foundation has been laid in the writ petition as to why on what ground the notification issued by the State Government in exercise of its power under Clause 10 of the Cement Control Order be quashed. At this place, it would be pertinent to mention that no foundation has been laid in the writ petition as to why on what ground the notification issued by the State Government in exercise of its power under Clause 10 of the Cement Control Order be quashed. The second reason for not accepting the aforesaid contention would be that even in rejoinder no ground is disclosed as to how the notification Annexure- Rh is either void or ultra vires or beyond the power of rule-making authority who issued the impugned notification Annexure- Rh which is the basis for creating demand against the petitioner. 14. There is yet another reason as to why this contention raised on behalf of the petitioner should not be accepted is that wherever the validity or invalidity or vires of a particular Act, Rule or notification is challenged then such petition are entertainabie by the Division Bench of this Court and not by S.B. Had there been any real grievance for the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid notification Annexure-Rh he ought to have approached to the Division Bench and not to the S.B. for declaring it to be ultra vires. 15. In my humble opinion the demand created in pursuance of notification issued by the State Government Annexure- Rh in exercise of its power under Clause 10 of the Cement Control Order appears to be just and proper yet justice should not only be done but it must appear to others that it is being done. 16. It is nowhere stated by the respondents that the impugned demand has been created against the petitioner after giving an opportunity of hearing to him. Fixing the liability or creating demand of Rs. 15,827,73 is based on disputed question of fact and such liability can be ascertained only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 17. It is true that in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India this Court cannot enter into in disputed questions of fact alleged in Para 10 of the writ petition and denied in Para 10 of the reply filed on behalf of the respondents. In my considered opinion the law must now be taken to be well settled that even in an administrative proceeding which involves civil consequences the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable. In my considered opinion the law must now be taken to be well settled that even in an administrative proceeding which involves civil consequences the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable. A close scrutiny of Annexure-14 reveals that a liability of Rs. 15,827.73 has been fastened on the petitioner which has necessarily civil consequence, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 18. The principle of natural justice is treated to be a great humanising principle intended to invest law with fairness and to secure justice and over the years it has grown into a widely pervasive rule affecting large areas of administrative action, hence I pose a question in the present case as to whether before creating the demand does fairness require an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or not? In my humble opinion in the present case the petitioner is entitled to be given an opportunity of hearing before creating a demand of Rs. 15,827.73 against him. 19. It must be borne in mind by all the authorities while taking some administrative decision having civil consequences against a citizen of the State that fairness should always be treated as a fundamental principle of good administration. As a matter of fact it is a rule to ensure the vast power in the modern State is not abused but properly exercised and an aggrieved person before a Court of law may be able to demonstrate that the reasons which pursuaded the authority to reject his case were erroneous or non-existent. According to me the obligation to record reasons will certainly operate as a deterrent against possible arbitrary decision having civil consequences by the executive authority invested with administrative power. 20. After applying the aforesaid test I am satisfied that the impugned demand created against the petitioner without giving him an opportunity of hearing is against the principle of natural justice and fair play, therefore, it is hereby quashed and the case is remanded back to the Respondent No. 1 to decide the liability of the petitioner in pursuance of notification issued by the State Government Annexure-Rh after giving him an opportunity of hearing. As a result of the aforementioned discussion, the instant writ petition is allowed. The notice creating demand of Rs. As a result of the aforementioned discussion, the instant writ petition is allowed. The notice creating demand of Rs. 15,827.73 vide Annexure-14 is hereby quashed and the case is remanded back to the District Supply Officer, Chittorgarh with a direction to fix the liability under notification Annexure-Rh to the reply after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case both the parties are directed to bear their own costs.