Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the Order (Annex. VIII) passed by respondent No.3.

3. Crucial grounds of challenge, amongst various other grounds raised in the petition and orally submitted, are that:

(i) Petitioner was not heard when the respondent No.4 was heard and hence order impugned is bad for violation of principles of natural justice.

(ii) The impugned order does not contain reasons, whatsoever, leading to the conclusions arrived at and judgment given by the respondent NO.3.

4. The contents of Judgment were read over by the learned Advocate for the petitioners. The vernacular text thereof is at pages 62 to 64, while the translation is at pages 65 to 67.

5. On perusal of the judgment and order impugned, it is seen that:

(a) the un-numbered paras 1 to 3 refer to the appearances and the background;

(b) un-numbered Para 4 contains the brief factual background, including that a direction was given in Writ Petition No. 1127 of 2007 to decide the Revision Application within two months by impleading present respondent No. 4 in Revision Application and giving him hearing;

(c) un-numbered para 5 consis