Allowed

Pawan Kumar Jaiswal v. the Ombudsman and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC2 Nov 2012WPC/1327/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench held that an order passed without affording an opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Court set aside impugned order, reserving liberty to respondent to take steps after hearing petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 16.04.2012 set aside, liberty reserved to respondent to take steps after affording proper opportunity of hearing to petitioner.

Pawan Kumar Jaiswal Vs the Ombudsman and… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE : CG : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0 {Q : 1^>^^ OF 2012

¶3

PETITIONER Pawan Kumar Jaiswal
aged 37 yrs, s/o Shri D.N.Jaiswal
Secretary : Gram Panchayat- Amaldih
^^^r Tah-Lormi, Distt-Mungeli CG
.^^^y"-—-
^;..'.'--
^••""
RESPONDENTS 1. The Oinbudsman (Lokpal)
Mahatnia Gandhi National Rural
Employinent Guarantee Scheme
Jila Panchayat Parisar,
Near District Court: Bilaspur
District - BUaspur CG
2.' TheChief Executive Officer
Janpad Panchayat : Lorini
Distt - Mimgeli CG
'€""
^ ^^^. 3. TheUnionofIndia
^^z"::^^>';^. Through: The Secretary,
Departnient of Rural Development,
Ministry of Rural Development
New Delhi
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶4

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR

¶6

WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1327 OF 2012

PETITIONER

Pawan Kumar Jaiswal

Versus

RESPONDENTS

The Ombudsman (Lokpal) & Others

¶12

(Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India)

¶13

Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

¶14

Present:Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Tamaskar, Advocate for the respondent No. 1.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

(Passed on this 02nd day of November, 2012)

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 18.04.2012 (Annexure^- P/1) passed by the Lokpal under MNREGA, Bilaspur. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing or noticing the petitioner.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submits that though, the alleged illegality was committed during the period the petitioner was the Secretan/, however, when the notice was issued to the concerned post bearer, it is not known that the petitioner had been transferred to some other piace. The office was noticed, not the petitioner, against whom allegations were made.

¶20

¶21

The law is well settled that if there is any allegation against a person, and some order is proposed to be passed against him, the concerned person is entitled to an opportunity of hearing to put forward his case. Violation of principles of naturai justice is also tantamount to violation ofArticle 14 ofthe Constitution of India.

¶22

In view of that, without going into the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 16.04.2012 (Annexure P/1) is set aside, reserving liberty to the respondent No. 1 to take steps in accordance with law, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶23

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent with no order asto costs.

¶24

Atul

¶25

Sd/Satish K. Agnihotri Judge

Pawan Kumar Jaiswal v. the Ombudsman and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar Jaiswal v. the Ombudsman and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Annu Devi Anchal Vs Smt. Anupama Singh Tilakchadi and Ors.

Raigarh Club and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Purushottam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Bhupendra Singh Gujral Vs the State of M.P. and Ors.

Motumal Adwani Vs C.G.State Elctricity Con.Gri.Red.andORS.

State Bar Council Vs Arkendre Singh and Others