ORDER : R. Balia, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The undisputed facts necessary for this petition are that, by the order dated 21-2-1994, the petitioner company Himanshu Horns Pvt. Ltd. was granted exemption from payment of octroi for the period from 7-2-1394 to 6-2-1999 treating it as a new industry under the prevailing Scheme. Thereafter, by the order passed on 27-10-1995, the exemption granted by the order of 21-2-1994 has been cancelled. The ground on which exemption is purported to be cancelled is that the petitioner has not paid Rs. 27,000/- which was due to the Municipality towards house tax for the year 1994-95 and that the petitioner has obtained the exemption certificate by merely changing the name of the industrial unit, but, in fact, no new industrial unit was established by the petitioner entitling him to exemption. This order has been passed without any notice to the petitioner. The scheme for granting exemption to a new industrial unit on fulfilment of the conditions mentioned therein has not been withdrawn. 3. In the aforesaid premises the petitioner contends that, the order dated 27-10-1995 having been made without notice, it would amount to breach of principles of natural justice and is thus void ab initio. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner has obtained exemption by furnishing incorrect information and, in fact, the petitioner was not entitled to such exemption even if the petitioner was required to be heard before passing the impugned order dated 27-10-1995. He also submitted that from the material available on record of this petition this conclusion can be reached by this Court. 5. It is now well established norm of judicial administration in this country that unless excepted by express or implied provisions of law, no order affecting civil rights of a person can be made, whether administrative, quasi-judicial or judicial in nature, without adherence to principles of natural justice. To what extent principles of natural justice apply in a given case would depend upon the facts and circumstances of that case. But, in no case, without adherence to the minimum requirement of principles of natural justice by affording an opportunity of hearing, an order can be passed affecting rights of a person. It cannot be said in the present case that by making the impugned order dated 27-10-1995 rights of the petitioners are not affected in any manner. But, in no case, without adherence to the minimum requirement of principles of natural justice by affording an opportunity of hearing, an order can be passed affecting rights of a person. It cannot be said in the present case that by making the impugned order dated 27-10-1995 rights of the petitioners are not affected in any manner. By the order dated 21-2-1994 made by the respondent-Municipality in exercise of its authority, the petitioner-has been declared as a unit exempt from payment of octroi duty for five years. As law presumes, when statutory authority is required to discharge its statutory obligations according to law, it must be presumed that the decision to grant exemption certificate dated 21-2-1994 came into existence after due inquiry into the matter at that time. Under that order, the petitioner became entitled to carry on his business without burdening it with payment of octroi duty for import of any raw material for its activities for a period of five years. That benefit is sought to be withdrawn by the order dated 27-10-1995. Obviously, this order could not have been made without disclosing the reasons therefor and without affording the affected person an opportunity to explain why action should not be taken against him. Merely because some material existed with the respondent Corporation to make out a case that the petitioner did not establish a new industrial unit but was carrying on the business of an old industrial unit by merely changing its name, it cannot be permitted to act on that basis without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to explain such material. As the impugned order has admittedly been made without any notice to the petitioner, it must fail on this ground alone. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent strenuously urged by referring to certain documents in this petition to explain that the order is otherwise sustainable on the basis of such material. The reasons disclosed in the impugned order are non-payment of house tax and for change of name of an old industrial unit to the new industrial unit. The material which the respondent refers to can at the best be said to be evidence but not conclusive in itself to be treated as finding. The reasons disclosed in the impugned order are non-payment of house tax and for change of name of an old industrial unit to the new industrial unit. The material which the respondent refers to can at the best be said to be evidence but not conclusive in itself to be treated as finding. If the petitioner is found to have made any breach of any conditions of the order dated 21-2-1994, the respondent Corporation must initiate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law and then to reach appropriate conclusion and thereafter make appropriate order after considering all materials before it and discharge its functions for determining rights of the pa dies in a fair and just manner. Adherence to rules of natural justice cannot be abandoned. 7. This petition succeeds and it is allowed. Rule is accordingly made absolute. The parties to bear their own costs. This order will not preclude the respondents from taking any action against the petitioner in accordance with law. Petition allowed.