ORDER : 1. Heard. 2. Though the case comes up at the stage of admission, with the consent of both the parties the case is heard finally. 3. Challenge to the impugned order is on the sole ground that the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition fastening liability on the appellants to pay Rs. 70 Lakhs without issuing any notice and affording opportunity of hearing to them. 4. The respondent caveator would submit that true it is that the notices were not issued, but the case of the writ petitioner was squarely covered by the order dated 16.07.2024 (Deepika W/o Late Pravin Kumar, SBCWP No.10937/2024) passed by this Court. 5. Whether or not the case of the writ petitioner is squarely covered by the above decision, in our opinion, could not have been finally decided without issuing notice and affording opportunity of hearing to the appellants. 6. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is that there are certain factual aspects also, which are required to be verified and therefore, atleast one opportunity ought to have been afforded to the appellants before passing the impugned order. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and after perusing the impugned order, we find that the order fastening liability on the appellants to pay Rs. 70 Lakhs has been passed without issuing notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is restored to its original number. The appellants shall be entitled to oppose the relief sought for in the writ petition on such grounds, as may be available to them under the law. 8. Considering the fact that the matter relates to claim of ex-gratia amount on account of death, the parties may pray for expeditious disposal of the case before the learned Single Judge soon after the reply is filed. 9. We make it clear that we have not made any observation on the merits of the case.