JUDGMENT : Jayant Patel, J. Rule. Mr. Hemang Parikh learned AGP waives service of notice of rule. 2. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard today. 3. The short facts of the case appear to be that District Supply Officer had issued show-cause notice for cancellation of the licence, on the ground that there are serious irregularities. The petitioner carried matter before the Collector in appeal, and the said appeal was dismissed. The matter was further carried before the State Government, in revision being Revision Application No. 17 of 2007, and the said Revision Application has been dismissed, since the petitioner or his advocate did not remain present. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached to this Court by the present petition. 4. Heard Mr. Vora learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Parikh learned AGP for the respondent-State Authority. 5. It appears that there is default on the part of the petitioner in not remaining present on the date fixed. It also appears that the Deputy Secretary of the State Government, before whom the hearing was fixed, had kept the matter for four times, and the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that if this Court inclined to consider the matter for remanding to the State Government for reconsideration, the petitioner has no objection in paying cost for default caused in not remaining present, and the adjudication may be made of the matter on merits by the State Government. 6. Mr. Hemang Parikh learned AGP has not seriously disputed reconsideration of the matter, if the cost is awarded by this Court. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances, it appears that through there was default on the part of the petitioner, the contention of the petitioner is that he had assigned the matter to the advocate, and the concerned advocate did not remain preset and therefore, the petitioner may not be made to suffer. It is true that the advocate did not remain present, and therefore, the case has been dismissed for default, but such can be considered by compensating the default made on the part of the petitioner by awarding suitable cost to the respondent-State including for the litigation before this Court. 8. It is true that the advocate did not remain present, and therefore, the case has been dismissed for default, but such can be considered by compensating the default made on the part of the petitioner by awarding suitable cost to the respondent-State including for the litigation before this Court. 8. Further, peculiar circumstance in the present case is that there are no private party having lis with the petitioner. It was the case of cancellation of the licence granted to the petitioner on account of the alleged irregularities and illegalities, and it is essentially the matter on the aspect, as to whether the irregularities are committed or not. Had the delay or default altered the right of any parties or any irreversible situation is created during the period of delay, it might stand on different footing. However, as there is no alteration in the right of any parties pending the matter before this Court or before State Government and hence if State Government is directed to reconsider the matter on merits, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, no prejudice will be caused, more particularly, when the State can be compensated by awarding suitable cost for the default caused by the petitioner and of the present litigation. 9. Hence, the impugned order dated 2.2.2008 Annexure-K, passed by the State Government is quashed and set aside on condition that the petitioner pays cost of Rs. 2,500/- to the respondent-State within a period of four weeks from today. The petitioner shall be at the liberty to deposit the cost with respondent No. 3. After depositing the amount, the matter of Revision Application No. 17 of 2007 shall stand restored to the State Government, and by producing proof of payment of cost, it will be open to the petitioner to move State Government for reconsideration. After such application is made, the State Government shall give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and thereafter, pass appropriate orders in the Revision Application in accordance with law. Until the Revision Application is decided a fresh, as per the earlier direction, the ad interim relief granted on 16.5.2008 shall continue to remain in operation. 10. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly.