ORDER : This writ petition is directed against the cancellation of selection of the petitioner for allotment of retail outlet dealership of Kishan Sewa Kendra of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. at Sangarawa Goriya Road, District Sikar under open (W) category. 2. Contention of Mr. Anil Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was placed at serial No.1 in the merit panel for allotment of the aforesaid KSK retail outlet. Subsequently, a complaint against the petitioner was made by one Smt. Suman Swami, who was her competitor and was placed at Serial No. 2 in the merit panel. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, the respondent IOCL has cancelled the petitioner’s selection for allotment of aforesaid KSK retail outlet dealership vide order dated 5-11-2012. It has been contended that the allegation was made in the complaint that the petitioner has concealed the fact that the title of the land offered by her for setting up a KSK retail outlet was not clear inasmuch as the said land was in a joint khatedari and the petitioner did not produce the attested affidavit of co-khatedar Smt. Sallu, mother of Chhitar Mal. Smt. Sallu, who was aged 90 years, has since expired and Chhitar Mal was the one who sold the said land to the petitioner. Petitioner’s name has since been entered in the revenue records and land mutated in her favour. Moreover, before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was neither given any notice, nor an opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited before this Court the guidelines issued by respondent-IOCL for allotment of dealership of Kishan Seva Kendra wherein clause 18(B) clearly provides that when a decision is taken to investigate the complaint, the investigation will be done by a Senior Official of Oil Company and who will pass a speaking order after giving due opportunity to the complainant etc. It is contended that that when an opportunity of hearing is given to the complainant, such opportunity was also required to be given to the petitioner, who is likely to be adversely affected by the decision of the authority, which is evident from the use of the word etc. The aforesaid guideline is thus widely worded, which is indicated from the fact, that it requires not only giving of a due opportunity to complainant etc. The aforesaid guideline is thus widely worded, which is indicated from the fact, that it requires not only giving of a due opportunity to complainant etc. but a speaking order is required to be passed and a copy whereby shall be given to all concerned. It is submitted that the impugned order, having been passed without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, is bad in law. 3. Mr. Samit Bishnoi, learned counsel for the respondent-IOCL has submitted that the position of the revenue record has to be ascertained as on the date of submission of the application. The land offered by the petitioner for setting out a KSK retail outlet was on that day in the co-ownership and the petitioner did not submit no objection certificate of one of the co-owners of the land i.e. mother of the seller. Her selection has therefore been rightly cancelled. 4. On hearing of the counsel for the parties, I find that the action of the respondent IOCL in cancelling the selection of the petitioner for allotment of KSK retail outlet without any opportunity of hearing cannot be approved of. Such an action has been taken illegally, arbitrarily and unreasonably. Even if clause 18(B) of IOCL guideline (supra) is interpreted, it does not rule out the opportunity of hearing to the selected party. Although it does provide an opportunity to be given to the complainant etc., the other requirement of passing a speaking order contained therein is also one of components of principles of natural justice. The aforesaid provisions contained in clause 18(B) has to be construed to mean that it shall also requires an opportunity of hearing to the person, who is likely to be adversely affected by the decision of the respondent-IOCL. If his/her selection is going to be cancelled by such decision, it is necessary that he/she should also be given an opportunity of hearing. 5. In these circumstances, this writ petition deserves to be succeeded. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 5-11-2012, passed by the Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, IOCL cancelling the selection of the petitioner for allotment of KSK retail outlet is set aside. 5. In these circumstances, this writ petition deserves to be succeeded. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 5-11-2012, passed by the Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, IOCL cancelling the selection of the petitioner for allotment of KSK retail outlet is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the competent authority to decide it afresh after according opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and taking into consideration the documents shown to be canvassed by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 6. Stay application stands disposed of. Petition allowed.