Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Udit Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Somya Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Pollution Control Board. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner has made the following prayers:- "(i). To issue writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned recovery order dated 12.08.2024 and consequential recovery notice dated 17.12.2024 issued by Respondent no.2 (Annexure No.1 & 2 to this writ petition). (ii). To issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent for calling for record. (iii). to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. (iv). To award cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner." 3. Upon hearing of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perusing the material on record, it is clear that the impugned order dated August 12, 2024 was passed without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is to be specifically noted that the petitioner has sought for an opportunity of hearing and, inter alia, also sought for several documents in relation to inspection report and analysis report but neither these documents were provided to the petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. 4. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India , (SC) 1970 AIR Supreme Court 150; State of Orisa v. Dr. Binapani Dei , (SC) : 1967 AIR Supreme Court 1269; Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India (SC) 1981 (51) Comp Cas 210; M/s/ Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise , Gauhati (S.C.) : 2015 (8) SCC 519 as well as the judgment passed by this Court in M/s Khandelwal Brother v. Joint Chief Controller of Explosives Agra , (Allahabad) 2024 (167) ALR 465 5. One may rely on the judgement passed by this Court in the case of M/s Khandelwal Brother (Supra) wherein the coordinate Bench has held as follows :- "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. One may rely on the judgement passed by this Court in the case of M/s Khandelwal Brother (Supra) wherein the coordinate Bench has held as follows :- "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." 6. In light of the same, the impugned order dated August 12, 2024 is quashed and set aside with a direction upon the authorities to provide the documents they are relying upon, grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and thereafter, pass a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from date. 7. We make it clear that once the relied upon documents are provided to the petitioner, he would not seek any adjournment on the date of personal hearing. 8. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.