JUDGMENT H. Baruah, J. 1. Heard Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Zochhuana, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. In this petition, the order under Memo MADC 12/L&R/Gen/2009-2010 dated 22.03.2011 issued by the Executive Member (Rev) of the Mara Autonomous Council, Saiha is put under challenge. 3. The Petitioner herein is the holder of the pass No. WTC 52/81 dated 17.3.2004 of 4.2.1981. The aforesaid pass originally stood in the name of one L. Sazah. On 17.03.2004 the aforesaid pass was transferred from L. Sazah to the Petitioner and the Petitioner thus became the holder of the pass. While the Petitioner was enjoying the possession of the land covered under the aforesaid pass a show cause notice was served upon her by the Respondent No. 3 contending violation of the conditions No. 4 and 5 of the pass. No reply to the show cause was, however, filed. Thereafter, the Respondents by impugned order cancelled the pass of the Petitioner on account of failure on her part to fulfill the conditions laid down under Condition Nos. 1, 4 and 5 of the pass. 4. The pass No. 52/81 of 4.2.1981 contains the following conditions: CONDITIONS OF ALLOTMENT 1. If the land is not developed within three years of the allotment, the pass shall be cancelled. 2. The plot of land cannot be extended/reduced without the permission of the Lakher District Council. 3. Annual land tax should be paid before the expiry of June every. 4. If the land is required by the Council or for other public purpose, the Lakher District council may either take back half of the land of the entire land. 5. Apart from the terms and conditions mentioned above, the allottee shall abide with all the rules and regulations made by the Lakher District council. As per condition No. 1, after allotment if the land is not developed within 3 (three) years by the holder of the pass the pass shall be cancelled. Condition No. 4 contains that if the land is required by council or any other public purposes, the Lakher District Council may either take back half of the land or the entire land. Condition No. 4 contains that if the land is required by council or any other public purposes, the Lakher District Council may either take back half of the land or the entire land. Condition No. 5 speaks for that apart from the terms and conditions mentioned above the allottee shall abide with all the rules and regulations made by the Lakher District Council. The show cause notice issued to the Petitioner, however, did not contain the condition No. 1. Condition No. 4 is apparently related to the council while condition No. 4, however, relates to the holder of the pass. It is nowhere indicated in the show cause notice that the council ever required the land of the Petitioner for public purpose or for the council. There is nothing on the record to show that the Respondents ever issued show cause notice to the holder of the pass, the Petitioner herein that she had violated the rules and regulations made by the Lakher District Council. Therefore, it cannot be said that the holder of the pass i.e. the Petitioner herein violated the condition Nos. 4 and 5 at any point of time. There is also no indication in the show cause about the manner in which the condition Nos. 4 and 5 have been violated by the holder of the pass, the Petitioner herein. The Respondents, however, while passing the impugned order also included the condition No. 1 along with condition Nos. 4 and 5. At no point of time no show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner herein contending violation of the condition No. 1. Therefore, violation of condition No. 1 in the impugned order is unwanted. Since no show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner contending violation of condition Nos. 4 and 5 earlier to the show cause for cancellation of the pass on account of violation of condition Nos. 4 and 5 the show cause notice dated 20th January, 2011 and the impugned order dated 22nd March, 2011 both appear to be erroneous and illegal. 5. Mr. N. Sailo representing the Petitioner herein strenuously submits that since no show cause notice was issued contending violation of the condition No. 1 of the pass, the impugned order appears not sustainable. He also further submits that since no previous notice was issued to the Petitioner herein alleging violation of condition Nos. 5. Mr. N. Sailo representing the Petitioner herein strenuously submits that since no show cause notice was issued contending violation of the condition No. 1 of the pass, the impugned order appears not sustainable. He also further submits that since no previous notice was issued to the Petitioner herein alleging violation of condition Nos. 4 and 5, the show cause notice dated 20th January, 2011 for cancellation of the pass appears to be illegal. Mr. N. Sailo, therefore, submits that the impugned order canceling the pass which stands in the name of the Petitioner cannot stand in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. 6. Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, learned senior counsel in his usual fairness concedes that the show cause notice dated 20th January, 2011 cannot give effect to in absence of any earlier notice contending violation of condition Nos. 4 and 5. 7. Taking note of the facts appearing in the face of the record and the submissions advanced by the counsel of both the party, the impugned order is set aside and quashed. 8. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.