JUDGMENT By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 21.04.2005 & 24.05.2005 passed by the respondent No. 2 in case No. 23 of 2004-05, State versus President, Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Libbarhedi, contained as Annexure Nos. 7 & 9 respectively to the writ petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the report of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee dated 08.12.2004 that Khasra Nos. 41/3, 60, 117/1 and 524 situated at Village Libbarhedi, Pargana Manglaur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar were allotted to the petitioner on 18.06.2004 for the purposes of fisheries but the petitioner is not using the pond of Khasra No. 41/3 for fisheries and it is using by the petitioner for the purposes of growing Singhara, which is violation of the agreement. Believing the said report of S.D.M. Roorkee, case was registered against the petitioner and show cause notice was issued on 07.1.2005 to the petitioner to file its reply. The petitioner submitted its reply on 10.02.2005 stating therein that Khasra No. 472 measuring 1.34 hectare, Khasra No. 524 measuring 0.625 hectare, Khasra No. 60 measuring 1.198 hectare, Khasra No. 41/3 measuring 0.901 hectare and Khasra No. 117 measuring 0.717 hectare situated at Village Libbarhedi, Pargana Manglaur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar were allotted in favour of the petitioner in the camp held on 18.06.2004 and an agreement was executed on 15.09.2004 between the State and petitioner for ten years i.e. 18.06.2004 to 17.06.2014 only for the purposes of fisheries. The petitioner prayed for discharge of notice on the grounds, inter alia, in its reply. The reply was filed supporting by an affidavit of Sohan Lal, the Secretary of the said Samiti, who was asked to do pairvi in the case stating all the reasons. 3. On 21.04.2005, when the date was fixed in the case before the respondent no. 2, the pairokar could not appear due to illness. The counsel appointed by the petitioner moved an application for adjournment which was rejected by the Collector/respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2, after hearing the version of State passed the ex parte order against the petitioner canceling the allotment dated 18.06.2004 for the purposes of fisheries in favour of the petitioner. 4. The counsel appointed by the petitioner moved an application for adjournment which was rejected by the Collector/respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2, after hearing the version of State passed the ex parte order against the petitioner canceling the allotment dated 18.06.2004 for the purposes of fisheries in favour of the petitioner. 4. Thereafter on 19.05.2005 the petitioner moved restoration application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 21.04.2005 and to hear the petitioner on merit. The respondent No. 2 also rejected the restoration application on 24.05.2005. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned orders dated 21.04.2005 and 24.05.2005, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. The contention made on behalf of the petitioner is that the Pairokar, who was deputed for pairvi was not present due to his illness. The petitioner was not heard on the restoration application and was deprived from opportunity of hearing. The order rejecting the restoration application has caused substantial injustice to the petitioner. Therefore, if the order is to stand it would occasion the failure of justice and cause irreparable injury to the petitioner. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The restoration application was moved within time. It is settled law that as far as possible, the parties may be allowed to contest their case and the dispute of such a nature should be adjudicated upon after giving opportunity of hearing. When the application for restoration was moved which itself indicates that the petitioner was willing to contest the proceeding and atleast this aspect ought to have seen by the collector and the petitioner ought to have given opportunity of hearing. In my opinion, ends of justice would be met if the impugned orders passed by the Collector, Haridwar are set aside end the petitioner is given opportunity of hearing. 6. In view of above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The Collector shall decide the case on merits, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall not seek unnecessary adjournment and shall cooperate with the proceeding of the case.