Judgment F.M. Reis, J. Heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parites. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. 3. The petitioner challenges an order dated 21/06/2012 passed by the respondent herein revoking the Construction Licence no.VP/DD/2012-2013/CL-5/288 dated 12/06/2012 granted in favour of the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that she is the owner in possession of the house situated in the property surveyed under no.98/11 at Cotta in village Davorlim and has been residing in the structure situated therein in the said property. As one part of the house had been rendered inhabitable due to its dilapidated condition the petitioner applied for a licence to the respondent for reconstruction of a part of the said house in accordance with the statutory regulations. The petitioner obtained the approval from the Town and Country Planning Development, Margao on 23/03/2012 who approved the plans for reconstruction submitted by the petitioner. Consequently, the construction licence came to be granted dated 12/06/2012 bearing no.VB/DD/2012-2013/CL-5/288 by the respondent herein. Despite of obtaining all the approvals under the Building Rules and Byelaws the respondents revoked the said construction licence on 21/06/2012 granted to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the respondent of revocation of the construction licence the petitioner filed the above Writ Petition inter alia seeking to quash the order dated 21/06/2012 at Exhibit A to the petition. 4. Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner has complied with all the statutory regulations and obtained the construction licence and, as such, the question of revoking such licence would not arise. The learned Counsel has taken us through the technical clearance order dated 23/03/2012 of the Town and Country Planning Department, South Goa District at Margao and pointed out that the technical clearance came to be granted to the petitioner to carry out the construction of the house (reconstruction) as well as the construction of a compound wall as per the plans attached thereto subject to the conditions stated therein. The learned Counsel has thereafter taken us through the approved plan and pointed out that the Authorities have duly sanctioned the plans and, consequently, the Construction Licence came to be issued at Exhibit B dated 12/06/2012 whereby the respondent were duly granted the Construction Licence which was valid for a period of three years. The learned Counsel has thereafter taken us through the impugned order dated 21/06/2012 and pointed out that the respondent had revoked the said licence without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that the only ground referred to in the impugned order is that the ownership documents have not been produced and in any event the impugned order passed revoking the licence stands vitiated for breach of the principles of natural justice. The learned Counsel, as such, submits that the petition be allowed. 5. On the other hand, Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has pointed out that according to the respondent there was misrepresentation of facts by the petitioner which entitles them to revoke the said licence. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner has suppressed the facts about some pending litigation in respect of the ownership of the property. The learned Counsel, however, was not in a position to show that the petitioner was heard before passing of the impugned order. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and we have also gone through the records. On perusal of the impugned order dated 21/06/2012 revoking the licence, we find that there was no show cause notice and/or opportunity given to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order. Not giving such opportunity has resulted in the petitioner being deprived of a valuable right of being heard before passing the impugned order. Any order passed in breach of the principles of natural justice stands vitiated and, as such, we find that the impugned order passed by the respondent cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent was unable to point out that the petitioner was heard before passing the impugned order. 7. Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent was unable to point out that the petitioner was heard before passing the impugned order. 7. Without going into the correctness of the rival contentions in respect of the Construction Licence on merits, we find it appropriate that the impugned order be quashed and set aside and direct the respondent to pass an order with regard to any such revocation after hearing the petitioner in accordance with law. 8. Subject to the above, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). The petition stands disposed of accordingly.