Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned Government Advocate No. 5 for the State. 2. This letters patent appeal arises out of order dated 20.4.2007* passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C No. 4658 of 2001 by which the writ application has been dismissed. 3. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that non-practicing allowance was allowed to the Veterinary doctors by virtue of the Governments notification, which the Veterinary doctors enjoyed and all of a sudden vide notification dated 20th March, 2001, non-practicing allowance payable to the Veterinary doctors was withdrawn arbitrarily and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice. It is further submitted that on the basis of the Buff-sheet prepared by the concerned Minister, notification dated 20.3.2001 was issued on the ground that the Veterinary doctors were indulged in private practice and, therefore, the non-practicing allowance, as such, given to them should be withdrawn. 4. The learned Single Judge of this Court on appreciation of facts and pleadings of the parties, has held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no notice was required to be issued to the writ petitioners or their association, particularly in a situation where non-practicing ailowance was in view of the injunction not to practice. 5. The question as to whether the writ petitioners were indulged in private practice had to be verified and sufficient opportunity was required to be given to them to explain by way of show cause notice. The purported exercise of power by the State Government, in this view of the matter, must be held to be arbitrary, unreasonable and wholly without jurisdiction. 6. It is not in dispute that no opportunity whatsoever was given to the Veterinary doctors from whom the benefit of non-practicing allowance was withdrawn. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned Single Judge of this Court has also made observation pertaining to the conduct of the writ petitioners which also appears to be uncalled for. 8. From the materials on records and the pleadings of the parties, it is manifestly clear that non-practicing allowance which was being enjoyed by Veterinary doctors was withdrawn without applying the Principles of Natural Justice. 8. From the materials on records and the pleadings of the parties, it is manifestly clear that non-practicing allowance which was being enjoyed by Veterinary doctors was withdrawn without applying the Principles of Natural Justice. The proper course would have been to give an opportunity to explain their conduct as to whether they were indulged in private practice and only after seeing their cause, necessary order could have been passed in accordance with law. 9. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, the order impugned is not sustainable in law. 10. In the result, this appeal is allowed, order impugned as also the order passed by the State, as contained Annexure-1 to the writ application, are set aside. 11. The State authorities will, however, be at liberty to proceed in the matter afresh after giving due notice to the Veterinary doctors from whom the non-practicing allowance has been withdrawn.