ORDER :

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.

Leave granted.

2. It is not in dispute that the notice of hearing of the writ petition was served on the petitioner on 1-9-2003 and the date of hearing was notified as 2-9-2003. In view of the limited time available, it appears that the appellant's counsel made a request for adjournment. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the said request was not granted and the hearing of the writ petition was proceeded with. Apparently the appellant had no opportunity to file a counter or otherwise present his case effectively on the date of first hearing after notice. It is not even the case of the respondents that the counsel for the appellant was heard. At any rate, it does not appear from the preamble of the writ petition that the order was passed after hearing the counsel for the appellant. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the writ petition has to be disposed of afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties and we order accordingly.

3. It is not necessary to express any view on the merits of the case. However, as it is brought to our notice that the present incumbent of the of