ORDER : Heard Mr. V. Shivnath, Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners assisted by Mr. Jayant Kumar Pandey, Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. Nilendu Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.5. 3. Heard Mr. Vijay Shankar Jha, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.4. 4. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 3. 5. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “ i) To quash the letter no.2210 dated 2/7/15 issued under the signature of respondent no.4, whereby a shop vide Shop No.69/89 has been allotted in the name of Respondent No.5 on the terms and conditions as contained in the said letter. (ii) To issue a direction to the Respondent No.4 to take legally drastic action against the respondent no.5 in pursuance of letter no.2926 dated 19/11/14. (iii) to issue a direction to the respondent no.4 to remove the encroachment in part of Shop No.69 which has been forceably and illegally encroached by the respondent no.5.” 6. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the shop in question was initially allotted to Ram Kishun Sah, father of the respondent no.5 and grandson of petitioner no.2. He submits that after his death, vide letter No. 2210 dated 02.07.2015, the shop has now been allotted only to the private respondent no.5, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and accordingly he submits that the impugned order of allotment in favour of private respondent no. 5 is arbitrary and has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.4 on the other hand by referring to para – 3 of the counter-affidavit, submits that admittedly the shop was initially allotted to Ram Kishun Sah, and the petitioner no.1 as well as the private respondent are sons of Ram Kishun Sah. He submits that prior to allocation in favour of private respondent, the matter was duly enquired into and an inspection was also done and on the basis of the inspection, the impugned order was issued. However, during the course of arguments, he has not been able to satisfy the Court as to whether any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner prior to allotting the shop solely to the private respondent no. 5 vide the impugned order. 8. However, during the course of arguments, he has not been able to satisfy the Court as to whether any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner prior to allotting the shop solely to the private respondent no. 5 vide the impugned order. 8. Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent submits that after the death of his father he has continued to do his business and accordingly there is no illegality in allotment of the aforesaid shop exclusively to the private respondent no. 5. 9. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the material on record, this Court finds that admittedly the shop was initially allotted in the name of Ram Kishun Sah, and upon his death, the same has been exclusively allotted to the private respondent no. 5. It further appears that prior to allocation of the shop to the private respondent no.5 some enquiry was conducted, but admittedly, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the writ petitioners. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that an opportunity of hearing ought to have been granted to the petitioners prior to issuance of letter No. 2210 dated 02.07.2015 as contained in Annexure – 8 to this writ petition by which the shop was allotted exclusively in favour of the private respondent no. 5. 10. Accordingly, the letter No. 2210 dated 02/07/2015 as contained in Annexure – 8 to the writ petition by which the shop in question was exclusively allotted to the private respondent no. 5 herein, is hereby set-aside only on account of violation of principles of natural justice and the matter is remanded back to the Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Deoghar for passing a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the private respondent no.5. Further a copy of the materials on record, is also directed to be supplied to the petitioners as well as the private respondent no.5 so that they may advance their arguments on these materials also. 11. The appropriate reasoned order after hearing the petitioner as well as the respondent no.5 be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, after considering their arguments as well as the materials available on record. 12. 11. The appropriate reasoned order after hearing the petitioner as well as the respondent no.5 be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, after considering their arguments as well as the materials available on record. 12. It will be open to the parties to file any further documents which they intend to file for the purposes of decision in the matter. Ordered accordingly.