JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - On October 9, 1998 the Financial Commissioner Appeals, accepted the revision petition filed by Geja Singh and two others. Resultantly he set aside the order dated February 4, 1998 passed in favour of the present petitioners. Aggrieved by the order of the Financial Commissioner, the petitioners have approached this Court. They complain that despite being parties in the revision petition, the Financial Commissioner gave no notice to them before passing the impugned order. It has been alleged that the case was posted before the learned Financial Commissioner Revenue on September 8, 1998. On that date, it was transferred to the Financial Commissioner Appeals-I. The counsel for the petitioners and State counsel were present on that date. On September 25, 1998 the Financial Commissioner Appeals heard the case and reserved the orders. He did not issue any notice to respondents No. 2 to 4 at any stage. Thus, the petitioners allege that there was violation of the elementary rules of natural justice. They pray that the order of the Financial Commissioner be set aside. 2. Notice of motion was issued. A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5. In paragraph 8 of the written statement it has been averred that the case was transferred to the Financial Commissioner Appeals for preliminary hearing. In para 9 it has been stated that the petitioners were a party in the revision petition. However, the specific averments in the petition that the Financial Commissioner had proceeded to accept the revision "without issuing any notice to the petitioners" as made in para 9 of the writ petition, has not been controverted. 3. Counsel for the parties have been heard. Mr. Arun Jain contends that in view of the admitted position, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Mr. Punchhi, learned Counsel for respondents No. 6 to 8 very fairly concedes that no notice had been issued to the present petitioners. 4. Admittedly, the Commissioner had accepted the claim of the present petitioners. Respondents No. 6 to 8 were aggrieved by the order. They had filed a revision petition. All persons who were parties to the case had a right to be heard before the competent authority arrived at a final decision. In the present case no notice appears to have been issued to the present petitioners. Respondents No. 6 to 8 were aggrieved by the order. They had filed a revision petition. All persons who were parties to the case had a right to be heard before the competent authority arrived at a final decision. In the present case no notice appears to have been issued to the present petitioners. They were, thus, denied the right to appear and argue. 5. Quasi judicial authority has to follow the principle of call, question and decide. In the present case, the petitioners were never called. They could not have been questioned. That being so, the decision cannot be sustained. Resultantly, we quash the order dated October 9, 1998 passed by the Financial Commissioner Appeals-I. The case is remanded. He will now proceed to decide it afresh in accordance with law. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.