JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned A.S.G.I. with Sri Gaurav Kumar Chand, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Respondents No.2 & 3 and Sri Namit Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 26.2.2024, 21.5.2024 and the consequential order dated 15.3.2024 passed by the Respondent No.1. 3. These orders have been passed against the Respondent No.2 cancelling the licence for storage of petroleum products in the premises of the petitioner who is running a retail outlet. Owing to the above orders, the petitioner's business has been directly impacted. 4. Mrs. Shalini Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the entire process of issuance of notice, hearing and thereafter the orders being passed has been done after granting opportunity of hearing to Respondent No.2 and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the reason for cancellation of licence of Respondent No.2 in the above impugned orders is the dispute with regard to the title of the petitioner, and accordingly, the petitioner should have been called upon to explain the said defects in the title. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.5 being a private respondent, who is the complainant in the said matter and allegedly related to the petitioner, submits that the title of the land belongs to him. 6. Learned A.S.G.I. appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 has submitted that there is a provision for appeal under Rule 154 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. However, in his usual fairness, learned A.S.G.I. has agreed that no hearing was granted to the petitioner. He, however, submits that since the licence was granted to the Respondent No.2, there is really no requirement to grant any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who is only acting as the dealer. 7. Upon perusal of the documents, we find that the petitioner has been carrying out his retail outlet since 1988 and there have been no complaints against the petitioner. 7. Upon perusal of the documents, we find that the petitioner has been carrying out his retail outlet since 1988 and there have been no complaints against the petitioner. The drastic action that has been taken by the Respondent No.1 in cancellation of licence of Respondent No.2 has resulted in the loss of the business of the petitioner without the petitioner having been granted the chance to explain the inconsistencies and dispute with regard to the title which was the subject matter that has resulted in the said cancellation. 8. In our view, the principle of audi alteram partem has been bedrocked in the quasi judicial decision taken by the State and/or its instrumentalities acting on behalf of the State. In a situation wherein no opportunity of hearing is granted to the affected parties, there is obviously a breach of principles of natural justice and prejudice is caused to the party who has not been heard. In the present case, the violation of principles of natural justice has directly resulted in prejudice to the petitioner, and accordingly, we are of the view that the action taken by the Respondent No.1 is not correct. A catena of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments and judgments of this High Court have held that even though the statute/rule do not provide for a specific opportunity of hearing to be granted, when there are civil consequences affecting a party, the right approach is to grant an opportunity of hearing to him. 9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside with liberty granted to the Respondent No.1 to issue a show cause notice upon the Respondent No.2 and to the petitioner along with the private respondent being Respondent No.5, grant personal hearing to the parties and thereafter to pass a reasoned order. 10. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 26.2.2024, 21.5.2024 and 15.3.2024 are quashed and set aside with liberty granted to the Respondent No.1 to issue a show cause notice to Respondent No.2 and to the petitioner along with the private respondent being Respondent No.5 and thereafter to pass a reasoned order within a period of four weeks from date of service of certified copy of this order, after granting opportunity of personal hearing to the parties concerned. 11. With the above direction the writ petition is disposed of.