JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. R.C. Tewari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 4. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order No. 14927 dated 15.11.2018 contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner's contract as Handling and Transport Contractor, PEG Mubarakpur Kala, Ballia and State Warehousing Centre, Chitbaragaon have been cancelled. The petitioner has also challenged the order No. 14926 dated 15.11.2018 contained in Annexure no.2, whereby his ad hoc contract as Handling and Transport Contractor, State Warehousing Centre, Chitbaragaon has been cancelled by the Secretary, U.P. State Warehousing Corporation, New Hyderabad, Lucknow. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 5.12.2018 and the consequential order dated 15.12.2018, whereby registration of the petitioner as Handling and Transport Contractor has been cancelled as well as advertisement/e-tender notice dated 6.1.2019 to the extent it invites tender for appointment of Handling and Transport Contractors with respect to centre PEG Mubarakpur Kala, Ballia. 3. At the very outset, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner did not want to press the relief against the orders dated 15.12.2018 and 5.12.2018 contained in Annexure Nos. 3 and 4, respectively, to the writ petition and he confines his prayer only to quashing the order No. 14927 dated 15.11.2018 and order No. 14926 dated 15.11.2018 contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, to the writ petition. 4. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the contract of the petitioner as Handling and Transport Contractor, PEG Mubarakpur Kala, Ballia has been cancelled in violation of principles of natural justice as before passing the impugned orders dated 15.11.2018 contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2, no opportunity of hearing was provided. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 15.11.2018 contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition are bad in law. 5. The aforesaid facts have fairly been accepted by Mr. R.K. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 4 on the basis of instructions and he submitted that the impugned orders dated 15.11.2018 contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition may be quashed with liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with law. 6. 5. The aforesaid facts have fairly been accepted by Mr. R.K. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 4 on the basis of instructions and he submitted that the impugned orders dated 15.11.2018 contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition may be quashed with liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with law. 6. Appreciating the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that the impugned orders dated 15.11.2018 contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition, respectively, to the writ petition have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice as prior to passing the aforesaid impugned orders, no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner. 7. It is true that any order which entails civil consequences must be in consonance with the principles of natural justice. In D.K.Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (1993) 3 SCC 259 it has been held that an order involving civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. 8. In view of the above, the order No. 14927 dated 15.11.2018 and order No. 14926 dated 15.11.2018 contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, to the writ petition, are hereby quashed. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to pass fresh order in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be allowed to perform his job as contractor for Handling and Transporting Contractor, till the fresh orders are passed by the respondents. 9. The writ petition stands disposed of.