JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.4.2010, made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 848/2007 titled Sh. Krishan Dayal vs. Himachal Pradesh State Financial Corporation and Others, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be allowed and Annexure P2 questioned in the writ petition was quashed and set aside, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned judgment” for short, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. Petitioner, by the medium of writ petition, had sought quashment of Annexure P2, on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 3. It appears that Annexure P2 is show-cause notice issued by the Collector, on the grounds made out in Annexure RB-2 with the reply. 4. Annexure RB-2 does disclose that notice was issued to the writ petitioner and thereafter he has committed faults. Again, notice was issued. Be it as it is. 5. The pleadings and the documents do disclose that the writ petitioner was heard. The learned Writ Court has relied upon the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in Unique Butyle Tube Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. U.P. Financial Corporation and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 455 , which is not in favour of the writ petitioner but virtually it goes against the petitioner. 6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent No. 1 herein stated at the Bar that the Civil Suit filed by the appellant was dismissed and he may be permitted to reply the show-cause notice. Show-cause notice is contained in Annexure P2. Even otherwise, the writ petitioner has to file reply to the show-cause notice. 7. In the given circumstances, the LPA is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. Writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 herein is at liberty to file reply to the show-cause notice and take out all those grounds, which are available to him in the reply to the said show- cause notice. 8. Having said so, the LPA is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.