H. L. DATTU, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is a medical college hospital. It is engaged in both teaching medical sciences and also in providing indoor and outdoor treatment to the patients who are generally of rural background and of limited economic resources. The petitioner, for various medical diagnostic and treatment, had imported medical equipments claiming benefit of exemption under Ministry of Defence (Department of Revenue) notification No. 64/88-Cus. , dated 1-3-1988. In order to obtain exemption under the aforesaid notification, petitioner was required to obtain eligibility certificate from the Director General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, new Delh. In fact, petitioner had applied for import of equipment. Pursuant to the request so made, eligibility certificate had been issued by the respondent authority. Using the said certificate, petitioner had imported and cleared various types of machines which are useful for diagnostic and treatment between 1-10-1990 to 3-2-1993. At the time of clearance of these machineries, the petitioner had not executed any bond to secure the duty exemption. ( 2 ) NEARLY after 8 years from the date of import of machineries under the eligibility certificate issued by the respondent authorities, an order is now made withdrawing the eligibility certificate granted, by an order made on 15-1-2001. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. ( 3 ) APART from others, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend, that before passing the impugned order, the respondent authorities had neither issued any show cause notice to the petitioner directing it to show cause why the certificate issued earlier for import of machinery should not be cancelled nor had afforded it an opportunity of hearing. Therefore it is contended, that the impugned order passed by the respondent authority is in violation of principles of natural justice and a request is made to set aside the impugned order. ( 4 ) THE respondent is served but its learned counsel is not present before the Court in spite of requesting the learned counsel to be present before the Court at the time of hearing of the matter. ( 5 ) THE facts are not in dispute in the present case. On a request made by the petitioner eligibility certificate was issued by the respondent authorities as required under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. , dated 1-3-1988. ( 5 ) THE facts are not in dispute in the present case. On a request made by the petitioner eligibility certificate was issued by the respondent authorities as required under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. , dated 1-3-1988. Petitioner, by making use of the notification so issued, had imported certain machineries between 1-10-1990 to 3-2-1993. Since the petitioner had the eligibility certificate, the customs duty had not been imposed on the machineries imported. ( 6 ) NOW the respondent authorities are of the view that the petitioner has not complied with the terms and conditions of the notification. Therefore, they have cancelled the eligibility certificate issued earlier. In my opinion, the respondent authorities, without issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner directing it to show cause why the certificate issued should not be cancelled and without affording it an opportunity of hearing could not have passed the impugned order. Since the respondent authorities have not done that exercise in the instant case, their action is in violation of principles of natural justice and on this aspect of the matter an elaborate discussion is unnecessary because it is settled principle of law that a person who would be affected by an adverse order should be issued with a notice and should be afforded with an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent authorities requires to be set aside by this Court. ( 7 ) IN view of the above, the following ORDER . Writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute.. The impugned order passed by the respondent authorities dated 31-10-2000 is set aside.. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities, if they so desire, to pass a fresh order after issuing an appropriate show cause notice to the petitioner and after affording it a reasonable opportunity of hearing. IV. All the other contentions of the petitioner are left open. Ordered accordingly.