Judgment K.J. Thaker, J. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the action of the respondent of canceling his contract vide impugned communication/letter dated 26.11.2013, produced at Annexure-E to this petition. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner was allotted the contract of breeding fish by the respondent and in respect thereof, an agreement came to be executed between the parties on 30.08.2010. According to the petitioner, he has spent an amount Rs.9,50,102/- pursuant to the allotment of the aforesaid contract. It is the case of the petitioner that the period of the aforesaid contract was extended by the respondent from a period of three years to six years vide communication/order dated 18.11.2013. However, after about a week pursuant thereto, i.e. on 26.11.2013, the petitioner received the impugned communication, wherein, it was stated that through inadvertence the contract of the petitioner was extended to six years. The respondent authorities fixed 18.12.2013, as the date for fresh tender/auction. Hence, the present petition. 3. Mr. Tirmizi, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has invested an amount of Rs.9,50,000/- in the said project, since, the contract was given to him for a period of six years, i.e. from the year 2010 to 2016, and therefore, the action of respondent of inviting fresh tenders in respect of the very same work is unjust and arbitrary. He, further, submitted that the petitioner was consciously allotted the contract for a period of six years, and hence, the same could not have been reduced to three years by the respondent, by terming the same as an inadvertent mistake. He lastly submitted that the respondent did not even cared to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, before taking adverse action against him. He, therefore, prayed that the petition be allowed. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Desai, learned Advocate, supported the action of the respondent and submitted that the respondent has no power to grant the contract for a period of six years and hat the petitioner was granted the contract for six years through inadvertence, because of unawareness on the part of the respondent of the resolution of the Fisheries Department, Dated : 25.02.2004. He, hence, prayed that the petition be dismissed. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. He, hence, prayed that the petition be dismissed. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. While admitting this petition on 17.12.2013, this Court granted interim relief in terms of Para-12(B) of the prayer clause of this petition, since, this Court noticed that the respondent extended the term of contract and the same has not come to an end. When, the matter again came before this Court for hearing on 07.01.2014, Mr. Desai, learned Advocate for the respondent, prayed for time to enable him to file his counter, which ultimately came to be filed on 11.02.2014. Paras-4 and 5 of the reply filed by the respondent reads as under, “4. I say and submit that in response to para 1 to 3, I here by make no comments. I further say and submit that with regard to all the averments made in para 4 are not correct and therefore I deny the same. I humbly say and submit that it is true that the petitioner enter with the agreement with the present respondent and the petitioner alloted the contract up to 30.08.2016 but the said contract was done by the bona fide mistake of the respondent herein. It is humbly submitted that the respondent herein had no any powers to extend time limit but due to unawareness of the resolution of fishery department dated 25/02/2004, numbered FDX-112003-1618-T, the respondent herein falsely extended the period from 3 years to six years. 5. I humbly say and submit that all the averments made in para 5 and 6 are not correct. The petitioner entered in to contract with the respondent herein on 30.08.2010, but even as per the case of the petitioner and as it is stat ed in the para no. 3 that the petitioner had tendered cheque of Rs.9,00,102/- on 05.08.2010 but the respondent did not accept the cheque and therefore the petitioner has deposited the money in cash on 30.08.2010. I further say and submit that apparently the resolution was passed after the allotment and therefore it shows that by bonafide mistake of the respondent herein, the time limit of the contract was extended. I further say and submit that apparently the resolution was passed after the allotment and therefore it shows that by bonafide mistake of the respondent herein, the time limit of the contract was extended. I further say and submit that the petitioner herein has not invested Rs.9,50,102/- after the resolution dated 18.11.2010 as mention in para no.6, but he had all ready deposited the said amount on 30.08.2010 and then after by bonafide mistake the contract was extended and the resolution with that regard was passed by the respondent herein. Therefore also, the prayer as prayed for, may kindly not be granted in favour of the petitioner and stay granted earlier may kindly be vacated, in the interest of justice.” 6. Thus, from the reply filed by the respondent, it emerges that neither any show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor was he afforded an opportunity of hearing, before canceling his contract, which was extended upto six years by the respondent. Now, the respondent states that the person, who had extended the contract, has no authority to do so and they want to conduct fresh auction for the work, which is already given by them to Panam Machhi Center of which the petitioner is a proprietor, and for which purpose they have already issued an advertisement. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the respondent could not have done the same, especially, without issuing notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The aforesaid fact stands established from the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent, itself. Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed. 7. In the result, this petition is ALLOWED. The impugned communication/letter dated 26.11.2013 issued by the respondent is QUASHED and set aside. However, it is observed that it shall be open to the respondents to take a fresh decision in the matter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is needless to say that till the respondent takes any decision with regard to the contract in question, the present petitioner will be permitted to function, as per the old arrangement. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.