ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties as with regard to the following relief prayed in this writ application : – "…. for quashing the order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation ltd. whereby and whereunder the dealership of the petitioner was cancelled without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner prior to passing the cancellation order and further issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to reinstate the dealership to the petitioner of Indian Oil Corporation." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the aforementioned prayer, has straightforward invited to averment made in paragraph 10 of the writ application which for the sake of clarity and convenience is being quoted hereinbelow: – "10. That the General Manger Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. passed the order of cancellation of RO dealership of the petitioner without issuance of notice and granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner contrary to the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in series of pronouncement." 3. Mr. K. D. Chatterji, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, having filed a counter affidavit today, has referred to paragraph 9 thereof, which actually admits that the impugned order was passed without any show cause notice to the petitioner. Paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, in fact, reads as follows: – "9. That reply to the paragraph 10 of the writ application, it is stated that no notice was sent to the petitioner before passing the speaking order contained in Annexure 2 to the writ application nor was the petitioner called for personal hearing." 4. It thus becomes clear that the impugned order cancelling the selection of the petitioner was made without compliance of the principle of natural justice. Admittedly, a right has been vested in the petitioner on account of his being selected and also communicated for such selection. Such a right in fact could not have been taken away even without notice and/or affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order has to be held to be bad only on account of violation of principle of natural justice. 5. Such a right in fact could not have been taken away even without notice and/or affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order has to be held to be bad only on account of violation of principle of natural justice. 5. The impugned order dated 10.12.2013 is, accordingly, quashed and the matter is remitted back to the authorities who, if necessary, shall proceed to decide the matter afresh but only after giving a notice and/or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. Since the impugned order has been quashed on a technical ground of violation of principle of natural justice, nothing said in this order will be deemed to be constituting an opinion of this Court on merits of the case. 7. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of.