Heard Mr. S. Kataki, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Dr. B. Ahmed, the learned standing counsel for the Cooperation Department for the respondent Nos.1 & 2. The learned counsel Ms. J. Bora appears for the Liquidator of STATFED (respondent No.3).

2. The petitioner’s claim on account of the closure of operation of the oil mill unit under the STATFED, was rejected on 28.8.2009 (Annexure-M) by the Liquidator of STATFED and this is what is challenged here. According to the petitioners, they suffered loss and damage due to sudden closure of the STATFED’s oil mill unit, which they were operating, under the agreement dated 2.9.2003 (Annexure-A). The Liquidator declared that the claimant had defaulted in making payment of the usage charge and monthly royalty and hence direction was issued to pay the arrear amount to the other side.

3. The petitioner does not challenge the legality of the impugned order on merit but Mr. S. Kataki, the learned counsel submits that hearing was not afforded to the affected party and therefore the Liquidator’s order is legally unsustainable. In support of his contention, Mr. Kataki relies on Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow vs.