JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K.Srivastava for the respondent No. 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. In view of the consent of the learned counsels the petition is being disposed of finally at this stage without awaiting any further affidavits. 2. The prime issue raised by the petitioner in this petition is that the impugned order dated 13.10.2009 is in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the directions of this Court in the judgment dated 3.8.2009 have not been complied with in right earnest and the petitioner’s claim has been non-suited without letting the petitioner know about the objection raised by the respondent No. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on account of the aforesaid twin errors committed by the District Inspector of Schools the impugned order is liable to be set aside as it is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no indication or mention of the demand made by the petitioner for supplying a copy of the reply submitted by the respondent No. 4 on 29.9.2009. 4. Sri Srivastava contends that after having received the contention on behalf of the petitioner the District inspector of Schools vide order dated 2.9.2009 called upon the respondent No. 4 to submit his reply which was submitted and which has been considered in detail while passing the impugned order. The error committed by the District Inspector of Schools is that inspite of a written request made, the said reply of the respondent No. 4 had never been made available to the petitioner and in the absence of any knowledge of the contents of such objection, the petitioner had absolutely no occasion to submit a reply to the same. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any recital in the order dated 13.10.2009 that the petitioner was ever made aware about the reply submitted by the respondent No. 4 and the objections taken therein. This was necessary as the reply submitted by the respondent No. 4 has been accepted by the District inspector of Schools and has also been made the basis of passing of the impugned order. This was necessary as the reply submitted by the respondent No. 4 has been accepted by the District inspector of Schools and has also been made the basis of passing of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the respondents have also not been able to point out any such material or recital to that effect. 6. In the opinion of the Court non-supply of the said document to the petitioner inspite of repeated demands violates the principles of natural justice and the Court is supported in its opinion by the Division Bench in the case Rayeen Fruits Co. and others v. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2000 RD 440 and M/s Nagarjuna Constructions Co. v. Govt. of A.P. and others, 2008(12) JT 371 Paragraph 30. On account of non-supply of the objection filed by the respondent No. 4 the cause of the petitioner has been prejudiced and therefore, the order impugned dated 13.10.2009 is un-sustainable. 7. For the reasons stated herein above the order dated 13.10.2009 is set aside and a direction is issued to the respondent No. 3 to proceed to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner committee of management to rebut the response submitted by the respondent No. 4 as expeditiously as possibly preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. 8. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ————