Judgment ( 1. ) -THIS petition is directed against an order dated 5. 1. 2008 Annexure P-19 issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Katni by which the Commissioner cancelled the permission granted to the petitioner dated 27. 10. 2006 on the ground that the aforesaid permission was obtained by the petitioner by concealing certain facts. This order has been assailed by the petitioner on following grounds :- (i) That before issuance of order Annexure P-19, no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was extended to the petitioner and the principles of natural justice were violated by respondents No. 4 and 5. (ii) That the permission to construct a market was accorded by respondent No. 4 on 27. 10. 2006 and in compliance of the aforesaid permission, the petitioners had commenced the construction At the time of issuance of order Annexure P-19, 50% of the work was already completed. (iii) The Commissioner was having power to modify or revoke such permission under section 299 of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to act] though such powers could have been exercised before commencement of the work but after commencement of the work as per the sanction, the Commissioner was not having any powers in this regard to either modify or revoke permission granted to the petitioner. (iv) That the grounds on which the order Annexure P-19 was issued was based on non-existing ground. In absence of any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the petitioners were deprived to raise all these contentions before the respondents. (v) That the permission once accorded and the construction was commenced then only the State Government under section 299a of the Act was having powers to cancel or revise the permission for construction of the building but in this case no such powers were exercised by the State Government. The action of the respondents No. 4 and 5 by issuing order Annexure P-19 is not only illegal but also without jurisdiction which may be quashed. ( 2. The action of the respondents No. 4 and 5 by issuing order Annexure P-19 is not only illegal but also without jurisdiction which may be quashed. ( 2. ) SARVASHRI R. K. Samaiya and Mukesh Agrawal supported the order passed by the respondents and submitted that the petitioners were failed to comply with the directions issued by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal and in such circumstances the Krishi Upaj Mandi had rightly sought cancellation of the sanction from respondents No. 4 and 5 and they have rightly cancelled the permission in which there is no fault. ( 3. ) BEFORE proceedings further it will be pertinent to mention here that the construction in question has been raised beyond the boundaries of Krishi Upaj mandi but within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Katni. Earlier a writ petition was filed by the petitioners who were allotted platforms, challenging the action of the local administration who initiated a drive to remove the aforesaid platforms as it was creating hurdle in the traffic. The writ petition bearing Nos. W. P. 1866/99, w. P. 1366/99, W. P. 1757/99 and W. P. 1991/99 were heard by the learned Single judge of this Court and vide order dated 18. 8. 2000 all the writ petitions were dismissed. Thereafter four Letters Patent Appeals were filed before the Division bench bearing No. LPA No. 357/00, LPA No. 295/00, LPA No. 296/00 and LPA No. 299/00 all the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals were heard and decided vide order dated 24. 11. 04. The Division Bench in the aforesaid LPAs issued following directions :- "a. The members of the association, namely, Whole Sale Vegetables Sellers which are 118 in number and have shops at Bilaiya Ki Talaiya, platforms in the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti will file applications showing their respective area by 31. 12. 2004;. b. The said members shall also file separate applications for grant of licence for carrying on business within the area of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. c. The necessary premium of 255 of the cost be deposited of the shops likely to be constructed by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti at the time of submission of application. 12. 2004;. b. The said members shall also file separate applications for grant of licence for carrying on business within the area of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. c. The necessary premium of 255 of the cost be deposited of the shops likely to be constructed by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti at the time of submission of application. The aforesaid sum shall be indicated to the President of whole Sale Vegetables Sellers association who shall be legally bound to accept and indicate the same giving appraisal report to the Municipal Council as well as to the competent authority of vegetables Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. d. The aforesaid 25% sum shall be given on agreed terms by three instalments, one at the time of submission of the application and the second by 15th of Feb. 2005 and the third by 15th of March,2005. The requisite shops on the basis of the applications and the first instalments received shall be constructed by end of April,2005. e. After completion of the construction of shops intimation shall be given to the President as well as to the Municipal Corporation. f. All the members of the aforesaid association shall shift to the shops by end of May,2005 and operate from the shops, from the constructed places as per applications. The members of the aforesaid association after being allotted the shops by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti as per norms of the Mandi Board and also pay the balance monthly instalments after expiry of six months from the date of occupation of the shops. g. If the members who are occupying the places and are to shift to the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, after the shops are constructed, and are available, do not shift by 31st of May,2005, it is open to the Municipal Corporation to take such coercive steps to recover possession. h. If the applications are not submitted by any members of the aforesaid association, the right to occupy the present premises would stand extinguished and the Corporation shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps after expiry of the period stipulated above. h. If the applications are not submitted by any members of the aforesaid association, the right to occupy the present premises would stand extinguished and the Corporation shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps after expiry of the period stipulated above. i. It is agreed that if any of the petitioners applies for getting converted his whole sale business to retail one, he would be allowed to stay at the present place and if at any time it is found that he is indulged in whole sale business, at the place in question, he shall be positively evicted and further also shall be liable for contempt of this Court. " It appears that there were non-compliance of certain directions issued by the Division Bench which were seriously contested by the parties, in separate matter. ( 4. ) THEREAFTER the petitioners moved to the Municipal Corporation for grant of permission for construction of a commercial cum residential complex within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Katni but beyond the premises of Krishi Upaj mandi. The aforesaid permission was accorded by the respondent No. 4 on 27. 10. 2006 Annexure P-18 [para 69 of the paper book] for the construction as prayed by the petitioners. On getting knowledge of such construction, vide annexure R-1 the Managing Director, M. P. State Krishi Vipdan Board wrote a letter to the Collector, Katni for taking action in the matter. The Collector, Katni vide Annexure R-2 dated 29. 12. 2007 directed the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Katni to cancel the permission. In these facts the order Annexure P-19 was issued. It is not disputed before this Court that at the time of cancellation of permission vide Annexure P-19, petitioners commenced their construction and after commencement of the construction, the Krishi upaj Mandi initiated action for the cancellation of the permission. ( 5. ) IN this case the contention of the petitioner is mainly on the ground that before passing of order Annexure P-19, no show cause notice was extended or opportunity of hearing is concerned, there is no dispute in this regard. It is not the case of the respondents that before cancellation of permission, any show cause notice was issued or opportunity of hearing was extended to the petitioner. It is not the case of the respondents that before cancellation of permission, any show cause notice was issued or opportunity of hearing was extended to the petitioner. It is settled laws that any action having any civil consequence should be taken by following the principles of natural justice but in the case the permission accorded to the petitioner was cancelled without issuance of any show cause notice or extending an opportunity of hearing. So on this ground alone order Annexure p-19 is not sustainable under the law. ( 6. ) THE second contention of the petitioner is that under section 299 of the Act, the Commissioner was having no jurisdiction to cancel the permission, after commencement of the work in pursuance to permission Annexure P-18 is concerned, the relevant provision may be looked into. For ready reference section 299 and 299a are re-produced :- 299. Power of Commissioner to direct modification of a sanctioned plan of a building before its completion - The Commissioner may before any work has been commenced in pursuance of any permission granted by it under [section 293]revoke such permission and may give fresh permission in lieu thereof on such conditions, in accordance with this Act and the rules, and bye laws made thereunder, with reference to the matters-mentioned in the said section as it thinks proper, and may direct that the work shall not be proceeded with unless and until? all-questions connected with the respective location of the buildings and any street have been decided to its satisfaction. all-questions connected with the respective location of the buildings and any street have been decided to its satisfaction. 299-A. Power of State Government to cancel or revise permission for construction of a building - [if it is found that any permission for construction of a building has been given in violation of any provision of this Act or Rules or bye-laws made thereunder or in the opinion of the State Government it is necessary in the Public interest that the permission granted by the Municipal corporation deserves to be cancelled or revised the State Government shall have power to cancel or revise such permission and on such cancellation or revision, as the case may be, any; construction contrary to the order regarding cancellation or revision shall be deemed to be without permission and shall be dealt within accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder: provided that no such order shall be passed unless the aggrieved party has been given an opportunity of being heard. " section 299 gives powers to the Commissioner to direct modification of the sanctioned plan of building before its completion. This section provides that the commissioner may, before any work has been commenced in pursuance to any permission under Section 293, revoke such permission and may give fresh permission in lieu thereof on conditions. In this case it is not in dispute that at the time of initiating action as per Annexure P-19, petitioner had already commenced work and it was in progress. In such circumstances the power vested to the commissioner under section 299 could not have been invoked. The Commissioner at that stage was having no powers to cancel the permission granted earlier. The recourse under the Act was only to refer the matter to the State Government under section 299-A of the Act to cancel or revise the permission for construction of a building granted by the Corporation. ( 7. ) SECTION 299 of the Act does not provide any proviso like 299-A but guide can be taken from section 299-A which specifically provide that the State government shall not pass any order unless the aggrieved party has been given an opportunity of hearing. Admittedly, in this case no opportunity was granted to the petitioner in this regard while passing order Annexure P-19. ( 8. Admittedly, in this case no opportunity was granted to the petitioner in this regard while passing order Annexure P-19. ( 8. ) IN view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is not sustainable under the law and is hereby quashed. ( 9. ) AT this stage, learned counsel appearing for Krishi Upaj Mandi and Municipal corporation submitted that they may be permitted to initiate action against the petitioners in accordance with law by approaching the State Government under section 299-A of the Act or any other provision. The prayer is misconceived, no such permission is required from this Court. The Corporation and the Krishi Upaj mandi are always free to take action against the petitioners if permissible under the law. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is allowed The impugned order Annexure P-19 is quashed. Considering the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs, petition allowed.