JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. By this writ petition a challenge has been made to the order dated 01.09.2010 by which, the petitioner was ordered to close the Creche Centre w.e.f. 01.04.2010. 3. Learned counsel submits that petitioner was allowed to operate the Creche Centre and extension was given on year to year basis looking to good performance. All of sudden, the order dated 01.09.2010 was passed directing to close the Creche Centre. It is pursuant to the recommendation made by one of the member of the Rajasthan State Social Welfare Board, Jaipur. It is stated that inspection was made by few members, which includes Mr. Shashi Shrivastav, however, report therein is favourable to the petitioner yet impugned order has been passed. The impugned order dated 01.09.2010 has been passed with retrospective effect i.e. from 01st April, 2010. Petitioner is doing his work properly and smoothly, thus there is no cause for respondents to withdraw the Creche Centre operated by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for respondent/s, on the other hand, submits that on inspection, petitioner was found to be working on paper and not in reality, accordingly, on recommendation made by one of the members of the Board vide Annex. 21, the impugned order was passed. This was after holding an inspection of the Creche Centre. Looking to the aforesaid, no interference may be made in the impugned order dated 01.09.2010. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 6. Perusal of the impugned order dated 01.09.2010 shows that the Creche Centre of the petitioner has been ordered to be closed as it was found not working. The order has been passed with retrospective effect though closure of the Creche Centre cannot be with retrospective effect. In any case, the basis to pass the impugned order is inspection report. One report, which is given by Mr. Shashi Srivastava is not unfavoruable to the petitioner. The respondents herein failed to produce any adverse report to justify their action. Other than the reference of Annex. 21 dated 26.06.2010, nothing has been shown by the respondents to justify their action to discontinue the petitioner to operate Creche Centre. One report, which is given by Mr. Shashi Srivastava is not unfavoruable to the petitioner. The respondents herein failed to produce any adverse report to justify their action. Other than the reference of Annex. 21 dated 26.06.2010, nothing has been shown by the respondents to justify their action to discontinue the petitioner to operate Creche Centre. In the light of aforesaid and the fact that impugned order has been passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice, it deserves to be quashed. 7. However, looking to the peculiar facts of this case, the matter is remanded to the competent authority to look into it again and after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, to pass a fresh order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If order of the competent authority comes favourable to the petitioner, he may be allowed to operate the Creche Centre and in case of adverse order, petitioner would be at liberty to take proper legal recourse thereupon.With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.Writ Petition Disposed of by Remanding Case for Passing Proper Order Afresh. *******