Judgment N.K.Sud, J. 1. Petitioner was granted "No Objection, Certificate" for installation of retail outlet on Hambran Road, Ludhiana Under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 (for short the Rules) by the Additional District Magistrate on 27 7.2004. A copy of the "No Objection Certificate" has been placed as Annexure P/14. Subsequently, vide order dated 3.1.2005, the Additional District Magistrate, Ldhiana has informed the petitioner that in vie of the orders of District Magistrate, Ludhiana dated 31 12 2004 and condition No. 9 of the "No Objection Certificate", "No Objection Certificate" dated 2 8.2004 is withdrawn The petitioner has challenged the said order in the present writ petition on the ground that the impugned order withdrawing, the "No Objection Certificate" has been passed in utter violation of Rule 150 of the Rules and in violation of principles of equity and natural justice, as no opportunity of being heard was granted to it before the impugned order was passed Counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that the petitioner has not even supplied the copy of the. order of{ District Magistrate, I Ludhiana dated 31 12 2004, on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed. 2. The learned Additional Advocate General, Pun|ab appearing on behalf of respondent Nos 1 to 3 has not been able to controvert the contention of the petitioner that no opportunity whatsoever had been granted to it by the District Magistrate or the Additional District Magistrate, Ludhiana before passing the impugned older dated 3.1.2005. 3. Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 contended that even if the principles of natural justice have been violated, it is not a fit case for interference by this. Court in its jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution as setting aside of the impugned order would result in restoration of another illegal order i.e. the "No Objection Certificate" which had been granted without following the procedure. 4. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.C.Mehta v. Union of lndia and Ors. A.I.R l999 S.C. 2583 and judgment of this Court in All India LPG Distributors Federation(North-West Region) v. Union of India and Ors. (2002-1)130 P.L.R. 815. 5. We have heard counsel for1 the parties and perused relevant rules. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.C.Mehta v. Union of lndia and Ors. A.I.R l999 S.C. 2583 and judgment of this Court in All India LPG Distributors Federation(North-West Region) v. Union of India and Ors. (2002-1)130 P.L.R. 815. 5. We have heard counsel for1 the parties and perused relevant rules. Once an application is made for grant of "No Objection Certificate", the authorities have the power to grant or to refuse it but once it is granted, it cannot be withdrawn or suspended. It can only be cancelled Under Rule 150 of the Rules, which read as:- . "150. Cancellation of No Objection Certificate.- (1) A no objection certificate granted Under Rule 144 shall be liable to be cancelled by the District Authority of the State Government, if the District Authority or the State Government is satisfied, that the licensee has ceased to have any right to use the site for storing petroleum. Provided that before cancelling a no objection certificate, the licensee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) A District Authority or a State Government cancelling a no objection certificate shall record, in writing, the reasons for such cancellation and: shall immediately furnish to the licensee and to the licensing authority concerned, copy of the order cancelling the ho objection certificate". 6 A plain reading of the proviso of Subrule (1) of Rule 150 of the Rules provides that before cancelling a "No Objection Certificate", the licensee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. This has admittedly not been done in the present case. We also agree with the counsel for the petitioner that by not supplying a copy,of order dated 31.12.2004, which is the basis of the impugned order, the petitioner has been denied an opportunity of being heard. . 7. In the present case, the petitioner had been granted "No Objection Certificate", by the District Magistrate, Ludhiana and has thereafter incurred substantial expenditure in starting the retail outlet. Even if, it is open to argument as to whether "No Objection Certificate" had been granted without following the procedure, the principles of equity and fair play demand that the petitioner be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard before "No Objection Certificate" granted to it is cancelled. Even if, it is open to argument as to whether "No Objection Certificate" had been granted without following the procedure, the principles of equity and fair play demand that the petitioner be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard before "No Objection Certificate" granted to it is cancelled. It has to be intimated about the lapse on its part and asked to furnish an explanation in respect of the same. 8. In vie of above, we are satisfied that there has been a violation of the provisions of Rule 150 of the Rules as also the principles of equity and natural justice in this case. Accordingly, we quash order dated 4.1.2005 Annexure P/20) passed by Additional District Magistrate, Ludhiana. This shall, however, not preclude the respondents from taking any appropriate action against the petitioner, if so warranted, in accordance with law. 9. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. 10. No costs.