Orders with civil consequences should not be passed without giving the affected party an opportunity of hearing, as it violates the principles of natural justice and the doctrine of equality enshrined in the Constitution.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Basavaraj V. Sabarad and Sri U. L. Narayana Rao assisted by Sri M. B. Prabhakar, counsel for respondent No. 5 as well as A. V. Sreenivasa Reddy, learned Addl. Government Advocate.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to the effect that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or an order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing No. ED 273 PGC 89 dated 23-8-1991, copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. R to the writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus or order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to delete the word 'cholur Palya' from the Order No. 288 PGC 288 87 D/-28-9-1987, copy of which is Annexure 'b' to the writ petition. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner-institution is known as 'lal Bahadur Memorial English School' which is a primary school, is a minority educational institution with its address as No. 26/4, 5th Cross, Magadi Road, Bangalore'. According to petitioner's case, the institution was started and it was registered some times in the year 1981 and the Certificate of Registration was issued in favour of the institution by the office of the Registrar of Societies in Karnataka registering it w. e. f. 2nd February, 1981. The petitioner's further case is that the petitioner applied for recognition and for permission to run the English Medium School. His application for that purpose was considered and after due enquiry, according to the petitioner's case, the petitioner was granted permission by respondent No. 1 by his order dated 28-9-1987 bearing No. ED 288 PGC 87 and this permission was granted with retrospective effect, that is, w. e. f. 1981-82. The petitioner's further case is to the effect that in this order of permission and recognition, copy of which is Annexure 'b', a mistake was detected in the description of the address/location of the petitioner's institution and it was wrongly mentioned as 'cholur Palya, Bangalore' while mentioning the name of the petitioner's institution. The mistake on being detected, the petitioner moved the respondents to correct that address so that there may not be any confusion. The petitioner's case is that he made several representations in regard to the respondents, copies of which petitioner has annexed as Annexures 'c' 'd', 'e, 'f' and 'g', but to no effect. The petitioner's further case is that he had been running classes from 1st to 7th during this period and had been admitting the students in those classes with the permission. There were 7 teachers appointed in the school and 2 Ayas. The petitioner's case is that the officers of the Education Department during this period also made inspections and found the work to be satisfactory. The petitioner further alleges that in the year 1991, the petitioner received an order on 19-9-1991 bearing No. ED 273 PGC 89 dated 23-8-1991 from Asst. Educational Officer, South Range, to the effect that Government had passed an order directing the substitution of the name of 5th respondent-School in place of the petitioner in the order dated 28-9-1987, i. e. Annexure 'b' to the writ petition. The petitioner's case is that respondent No. 5 had never made any application in the year 1987 or earlier for the grant of recognition.

( 3 ) NOTICES have been issued to the respondents. Statement of objections supported by an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5. No counter-affidavit or statement of objections have been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. The petitioner has also filed an application for being permitted to take additional grounds supported by an affidavit which I may say as a rejoinder to that statement of objections.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel Sri Basavaraj V. Sabarad submitted before me that once permission