ORDER The respondent issued a notification on 25.6.2010 inviting applications for selection of a Dealer to set up Kisan Seva Kendra Outlet at Badanakurthy, Khanapur Mandai, Adilabad District. The petitioner and another person, by name P. Vinod applied. On an evaluation of various aspects of the candidates, the respondent placed P. Vinod at Serial No.1 and the petitioner, at Serial No.2. No other candidate existed. The candidature of P. Vinod was discarded on account of certain reasons, which are not immediately germane to this writ petition. Ultimately, the petitioner was offered dealership 2. The respondent addressed a letter, dated 31.3.2012, cancelling the application of the petitioner on the ground that the bank balance in S.B.I. account of the petitioner at Khanapur Branch was found to be Rs.5,00,000/- and not Rs.10,50,000/-. The petitioner challenges the said communication. 3. Heard Sri B. Sarvotham Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 4. Though the petitioner was placed at Serial No.2, he came to be selected as dealer on account of the fact that the candidate at Serial No.1 was found to be disqualified. The guidelines issued by the respondent provided for verification of the information pertaining to the selected candidate. It is in this context• that the respondent got verified the bank account of the petitioner. 5. In his application, the petitioner mentioned that his bank balance as on 26.7.2010 was Rs.10,50,000/-. The respondent, however, mentioned that the bank balance was found to be only Rs.5,00,000/-. On this ground, the dealership was cancelled. At the outset, it needs to be observed that the respondent ought to have issued a notice to the petitioner before the offer of dealership was cancelled. It hardly needs any mention that with the selection as dealer, valuable rights have accrued to the petitioner and they could have been taken away only after giving him an opportunity of being heard. In that view of the matter, the impugned letter is violative of principles of natural justice. 6. On merits, the conclusion of the respondent cannot be supported. The reason is that the bank account statement of the petitioner does disclose that a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- remained to the credit of the petitioner as on 26.7.2010. It may be true that on the same day, several transactions took place, whereunder the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- and has withdrawn Rs.5,50,OOO/-. The reason is that the bank account statement of the petitioner does disclose that a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- remained to the credit of the petitioner as on 26.7.2010. It may be true that on the same day, several transactions took place, whereunder the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- and has withdrawn Rs.5,50,OOO/-. It was not at all proper for the respondent to take one of the entries. This becomes relevant particularly when the regulations do not stipulate that an applicant must have a particular amount to his credit in the bank. The only obligation on the part of the selected candidate is to keep funds at his disposal. The regulations provide for utilisation of the financial resources of the family members also. When such is the latitude shown in the regulations, the respondent is not at all justified in being hyper-technical and cancelling the dealership. 7. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned letter is set aside. The respondent shall take further steps for appointment of the petitioner as dealer. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of.