Kuldeep Kumar Verma @ Kuldeep v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Gramya Vikas, Govt. of U.P., Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2026WRIA/848/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Natural justice; audi alteram partem; recovery order passed prior to show cause notice; order passed without hearing vitiated; quashing of recovery order; writ of certiorari; liberty to pass fresh order considering reply to show cause notice; Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati, (2015) 8 SCC 519; Vinod Kumar Awasthi v. State of U.P., Writ A No. 6398 of 2003; petition allowed at admission stage; Kuldeep Kumar Verma @ Kuldeep v. State of U.P.; WRIT - A No. - 848 of 2026; Manish Mathur, J.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; decided January 28, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed at the admission stage; impugned recovery order dated 29.09.2025 quashed by writ in the nature of certiorari; liberty to opposite parties to pass a fresh order taking into account the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice dated 30.09.2025; parties to bear their own costs.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that peculiarity of the present case is that after issuing the order of recovery on 29.09.2025, opposite parties have issued a show cause notice on the next date on 30.09.2025 eliciting a response from petitioner. It is therefore submitted that evidently impugned order has been passed prior to adhering to principle of natural justice. It is submitted that however since no recovery has been effected till date in pursuance of order dated 29.09.2025, petitioner has already submitted a reply to the show cause notice dated 30.09.2025 but no final order has been passed till date.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is thus, evident that impugned order of recovery has been issued a day prior to the issuance of the show cause notice to petitioner. The said facts clearly indicates the aspect that the impugned order has been passed without adhering the principle of natural justice.

7. With regard to proposition of adherence to principle of natural justice, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Dharampal Satyapal Limited versus Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati & Ors.; (2015) 8 SCC 519 has enunciated as follows:-

"21. In Common Law, the concept and doctrine of natural justice, particularly which is made applicable in the decision-making by judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, has assumed a different connotation. It is developed with this fundamental in mind that those whose duty is to decide, must act judicially. They must deal with the question referred both without bias and they must give (sic an opportunity) to each of the parties to adequately present the case made. It

justice". The principles of natural justice developed over a period of time and which is still in vogue and valid even today are: (i) rule against bias i.e. nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa; and (ii) opportunity of being heard to the party concerned i.e.audi alteram partem. These are known as principles of natural justice. To these principles a third principle is added, which is of recent origin. It is the duty to give reasons in support of decision, namely, passing of a "reasoned order.

24. The principles have a sound jurisprudential basis. Since the function of the judicial and quasi-judicial authorities is to secure justice with fairness, these principles provide a great humanising factor intended to invest law with fairness to secure justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice. The principles are extended even to those who have to take an administrative decision and who are not necessarily discharging judicial or quasi- judicial functions. They are a kind of code of fair administrative procedure. In this context, procedure is not a matter of secondary importance as it is only by procedural fairness shown in the decision-making that a decision becomes acceptable. In its proper sense, thus, natural justice would mean the natural sense of what is right and wrong."

8. In view of aforesaid proposition of law, it is thus evident that opposite parties were required to provide an opportunity of hearing to petitioner prior to passing of any order which was detrimental to petitioner. Non-adherence to such a proposition of law clearly vitiates, the impugned order dated

29.09.2025, which is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass order a fresh taking into account the reply submitted by petitioner to the show cause notice dated 30.09.2025.

Kuldeep Kumar Verma @ Kuldeep v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Gramya Vikas, Govt. of U.P., Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Kumar Verma @ Kuldeep v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Gramya Vikas, Govt. of U.P., Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Narayan Uttam (Inspector , PNO-060470052) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Satya Prakash vs Union of India Thru. Secy. to the Govt., Deptt. of Home Affairs New Delhi and 4 Others

Mohd. Azad Ansari (PNO-170952941) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Vijay Shankar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Yuva Kalyaan Evam Prantiya Rakshak Dal, Lko. and 4 Others

Jay Karan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Engineering Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Mamta Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., U.P. Lko. and 4 Others