ORDER : 1. With consent of the parties, hearing of this matter has been done through video conferencing. They have no complaint about any audio and visual quality. I.A. No. 2943 of 2019 2. This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condoning the delay of 182 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal. 3. Heard the parties. 4. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2943 of 2019 is allowed and delay of 182 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. 6. With consent of the parties, this matter has also been heard on merit and is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State-appellants has confined this appeal to the last sentence of the last paragraph of the impugned order by which, according to the appellants, it appears that without recording any positive finding the learned Single Judge has observed that the writ petitioner is entitled to 2nd and 3rd MACP from the relevant dates, though, according to us, there is no such ambiguity in the order as the direction has been given to pass appropriate order for granting 2nd and 3rd MACP to the writ petitioner for which he is entitled to within a period of eight weeks. 8. The writ petition appears to have been allowed on the sole ground that by the impugned order the authorities have taken a decision to cancel the MACP without granting any opportunity to the writ petitioner and, thus, it has been held that principle of audi alteram partem has not been adhered to and further, no such order can be passed without following the principles of natural justice which leads to a civil consequence. 9. Accordingly, we modify paragraph 9 of the impugned order to the extent that the words “for which he is entitled to” shall be read as “for which he is found entitled to.” 10. This is further made clear that the writ petitioner should be given opportunity to explain his stand and would be at liberty to take all the grounds which would be available to him in law including those which have been raised in the writ petition. 11. This is further made clear that the writ petitioner should be given opportunity to explain his stand and would be at liberty to take all the grounds which would be available to him in law including those which have been raised in the writ petition. 11. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned order, this appeal stands disposed of. Consequently, Stay Petition (I.A. No. 10428 of 2019) also stands disposed of.