Single Judge upheld quashing of impugned order dated 25.10.2019 passed by District Magistrate without providing notice or opportunity of hearing to petitioner, citing violation of natural justice principles established by Supreme Court.
Impugned order dated 25.10.2019 set aside. Free to pass new order in accordance with law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 49
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38407 of 2019
Petitioner :- Smt. Hasirun Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 03 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhirendra Kumar Singh Rathor Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard Sri D. K. S. Rathor, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the following prayers:-
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari call for the records and quash impugned order dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar;
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar.
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus direct the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of petitioner as Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bhedauha, Development Block Khesaraha, District Siddharth Nagar."
Apart from various other arguments a specific argument has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before passing the order impugned dated 25.10.2019 by which petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.17,10,386/- no notice or opportunity whatsoever has been given to him. Specific ground in this regard has been made in paragraph 26 of the writ petition.
On 6.12.2019 following order was passed :-
"On 3.12.2019 the following order was passed:
"Heard Sri D. K. S. Rathor, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 25.10.2019 passed by the respondent no.2.
In paragraph 26 of the writ petition various grounds were taken by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order. Specific arguments has been
made by the petitioner that although vide order dated 25.10.2019 respondent no.2 directed the respondent no.3 to recover a sum of Rs.17,10,386/- from the petitioner but no notice or opportunity whatsoever has been given to the petitioner. It is argued that the aforesaid order was passed on the basis of the inspection report and the petitioner was never permitted to participate in the same.
The matter requires consideration.
Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted three days' time to seek instructions in the matter.
Put up as fresh on 6.12.2019."
Today when the matter was taken up nothing has been pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel in this regard.
In the interest of justice, one more opportunity is granted to learned Standing Counsel to comply with the order dated 3.12.2019 on or before 11.12.2019. If on or before, the order dated 3.12.2019 will not be complied with, the District Programme Officer- District Magistrate, Siddharat Nagar will appear in person before this Court.
Put up as fresh on 11.12.2019."
Pursuant to the aforesaid, instructions received by the learned Standing Counsel from District Panchayat Raj Officer dated 10.12.2019 was placed before this Court, the same is taken on record.
Even from perusal of the same, it is clear that no notice or opportunity whatsoever has been given to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
Since the order dated 25.10.2019 was passed without providing any notice or opportunity to the petitioner, the same was passed in complete violation of principles of natural justice. Law in this connection is well settled by the Supreme Court in case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs. M/s Shukla and Brothers reported at 2010 AIR SCW 3277 dealt with the principles of law while exercising power of judicial review on administrative action. It was held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that the doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials-
i) A person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard.
ii) The concerned authority should provide a fair and transparent procedure.
iii) The authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order.
Paragraph 9 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted below-
9. The increasing institution of cases in all Courts in India and its resultant burden upon the Courts has invited attention of all concerned in the justice administration system. Despite heavy quantum of cases in Courts, in our view, it would neither be permissible nor possible to state as a principle of law, that while exercising power of judicial review on administrative action and more particularly judgment of courts in appeal before the higher Court, providing of reasons can never be dispensed with. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard. Secondly, the concerned authority should provide a fair and transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order. This has been uniformly applied by courts in India and abroad."
In view of the facts as stated above, the order dated 25.10.2019 passed by the respondent no.2/District Magistrate, Siddharthnagar, copy of which is appended as annexure 4 to the writ petition is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. The respondents are free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. This order will not preclude the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 11.12.2019 Pramod Tripathi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order was passed without notice or opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice.
Whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside on grounds of violation of audi alteram partem doctrine.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Hasirun
State Of U.P.
Prakash Padia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
