Devnath Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Apr 2026WPC/468/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

natural justice; eviction notice quashed; shop allotment cancellation without hearing; Rent-Cum-Sale Scheme; Zila Antyavasi Sahakari Vikas Samiti Jagdalpur; Sanjay Market Jagdalpur; civil consequences; opportunity of hearing mandatory safeguard; writ against State instrumentality co-operative society; Article 19(1)(g) argued by petitioner; batch of nine writ petitions; WPC No. 462 of 2021 lead case; Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; Amitendra Kishore Prasad J.; NAFR; neutral citation 2026:CGHC:16267.

What did the court decide?

Impugned eviction notice dated 07.01.2021 (Annexure P/1) quashed; writ petitions disposed of with liberty to respondents No. 2 and 3 to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, ensuring due opportunity of hearing and a reasoned order. ¶¶127

Devnath Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶127

Issue for consideration

Whether the eviction notice dated 07.01.2021 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 3, alleging non-payment of rent and cancelling the shop allotment without any prior show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing, is sustainable in law.

¶¶122

Court's answer

Any administrative or quasi-judicial action having civil consequences must adhere to the principles of natural justice; affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing an adverse order is not an empty formality but a mandatory safeguard.

¶¶122

Ratio / Principle

Since the impugned notice has the effect of depriving the petitioner of her possession and means of livelihood, strict compliance with natural justice was incumbent; the impugned order (Annexure P/1), issued without prior notice or opportunity of hearing and without any inquiry, is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained.

¶¶125

Key takeaways

The impugned eviction notice dated 07.01.2021 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 3 is quashed; respondents No. 2 and 3 are at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, and if such proceedings are initiated they must afford due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law.ratio¶¶126

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common order of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.) dated 09.04.2026 disposing of nine writ petitions (WPC Nos. 462, 463, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 547 and 1252 of 2021), with WPC No. 462 of 2021 treated as the lead case. The petitioners, allottees of shops in Sanjay Market, Jagdalpur under the Rent-Cum-Sale Scheme of respondent No. 3 (Zila Antyavasi Sahakari Vikas Samiti, Jagdalpur), contended to be an instrumentality of the State, challenged the eviction notice dated 07.01.2021 (Annexure P/1) alleging non-payment of rent (outstanding dues of Rs. 57,240/-) and cancellation of the allotment. Held: any administrative or quasi-judicial action having civil consequences must adhere to the principles of natural justice, and the opportunity of hearing before an adverse order is a mandatory safeguard, not an empty formality; since the notice would deprive the petitioner of possession and means of livelihood, strict compliance with natural justice was incumbent. The impugned notice, issued without any prior show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing and without any inquiry, was quashed. Respondents No. 2 and 3 were left at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, with due opportunity of hearing and a reasoned order.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI

¶3

2026:CGHC:16267

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 462 of 2021

¶7

1 - Yamini Gonnadey D/o Rajendra Gonnadey Aged About 39 Years R/o- Hatakchoura, Tehsil- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶8

--- Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Antyavasai Sahakari Vitta And Vikas Nigam Maryadit (A Undertaking Of Government Of Chhattisgarh), Through Managing Director, Sector 27, Nawagaon Parsatti, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Zila Antyavasi Sahakari Vikas Samiti Jagdalpur, Through The Chief Executive Officer, District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Collector Bastar, President, Zila Antyavasai Sahakari Vikas Samiti, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶14

--- Respondent(s)

¶15

¶16

WPC No. 1252 of 2021

¶17

1 - Kumari Pratima Charya D/o Shri Binyamin Charya Aged About 53 Years R/o Maharanapratap Nagar, Ward No. 47, Qtr. No. 242, Jagdalpur, P.S. Pandaripani, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶18

--- Petitioner(s)

¶19

Versus

¶20

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Schedule Tribe And Schedule Caste Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Antyavasai Sahakari Vritta And Vikas Nigam Maryadit (Undertaking Of Govt Of C.G) Through Managing Director, Sector 27, Navagaon, Parsatti, Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶21

3 - Zila Antyavasai Sahakari Vikas Samiti Maryadit Jagdalpur, ThroughChief Executive Officer, Bastar, Distt. Bastar (Chhattisgarh), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶22

4 - Collector Bastar, President Of Zila Antyavasai Sahakari Vikas Samiti Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (Chhattisgarh), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶23

--- Respondent(s)

¶24

WPC No. 463 of 2021

¶25

1 - Tarsisiyus Ekka S/o Simon Ekka Aged About 54 Years R/o Aakash Nagar, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶26

--- Petitioner(s)

¶27

¶28

Versus

¶29

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Riapur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶30

2 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Antyavasai Sahakari Vitta And Vikas Nigam Maryadit (A Undertaking Of Government Of Chhattisgarh) Through Managing Director, Sector 27, Nawagaon Parsatti, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶31

3 - Zila Antyavasi Sahakari Vikas Samiti, Jagdalpur, Through The Chief Executive Officer, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶32

4 - Collector Bastar, President Zila Antyavasai Sahakari Vikas Samiti, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶33

Respondent(s)

¶34

WPC No. 465 of 2021

¶35

1 - A. Venkateshwar S/o Ramaswami Aged About 57 Years R/o Rabindranath Tagore Ward Tehsil Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh

¶36

--- Petitioner(s)

¶37

Versus

¶38

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶39

2 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Antyavasai Sahakari Vitta And Vikas Nigam Maryadit (A Undertaking Of Government Of Chhattisgarh)through Managing Director, Sector-27, Nawagaon, Parsatti, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶40

¶41

3 - Zila Antyavasi Sahakari Vikas Samiti, Through The Chief Executive Officer, District Bastar Chhattisgarh

¶42

4 - Collector Bastar, President Zila Antyavasai Sahakari Vikas Samiti, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh

¶43

--- Respondent(s)

¶44

WPC No. 466 of 2021

¶45

1 - Sukhmati Nag D/o Kanhai Kumar Aged About 44 Years R/o Dalpat Sagar Ward Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶46

--- Petitioner(s)

¶47

Versus

¶48

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶49

¶50

3 - Zila Antyavasi Sahakari Vikas Samiti Jagdalpur, The Chief Executive Officer, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶51

4 - Collector Bastar, President, Zila Antyavasai Sahakari Vikas Samiti, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶52

--- Respondent(s)

¶53

¶54

WPC No. 467 of 2021

¶55

1 - Badri Prasad More, S/o Late D.R. More Aged About 54 Years R/o - Rajendra Nagar Ward, Tehsil - Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶56

--- Petitioner(s)

¶57

Versus

¶58

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶59

¶60

3 - Zila Antyavasi Sahakari Vikas Samiti, Jagdalpur, Through The Chief Executive Officer, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶61

4 - Collector, Bastar, President, Zila Antyavasai Sahakari Vikas Samiti, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶62

--- Respondent(s)

¶63

WPC No. 469 of 2021

¶64

1 - Premlata Bambode D/o K.R. Bambode Aged About 48 Years R/oGanga Nagar, Ward No. 23, Tehsil- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶65

--- Petitioner(s)

Versus

3 - Zila Antyavasi Sahakari Vikas Samiti Jagdalpur, Through The Chief Executive Officer, District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶71

4 - Collector Bastar, President, Zila Antyavasai Sahakari Vikas Samiti, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶72

--- Respondent(s)

¶73

WPC No. 468 of 2021

¶74

1 - Devnath Kashyap S/o Alate Chaitu Ram Kashyap Aged About 48 Years R/o Gumdel Tehsil Bakawand, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶75

--- Petitioner(s)

Versus

3 - Zila Antyavasi Sahakari Vikas Samiti, Jagdalpur, Through The Chief Executive Officer, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶81

4 - Collector Bastar President Zila Antyavasai Sahakari Vikas Samiti, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶82

--- Respondent(s)

¶83

WPC No. 547 of 2021

¶84

1 - Balwant Gonnadey S/o Kishan Gonnadey Aged About 49 Years R/o Hatak Choura, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶85

--- Petitioner(s)

¶86

Versus

¶87

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶88

2 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Antyavasai Sahakari Vitta And Vikas Nigam Maryadit (A Undertaking Of Government (Chhattisgarh), Through Managing Director, Sector 27, Nawagaon Parsatti, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492101., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶89

3 - Zila Antyavasi Sahakari Vikas Samiti, Jagdalpur, The Chief Executive Officer, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶90

¶91

4 - Collector, Bastar, President, Zila Antyavasai Sahakari Vikas Samiti, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶92

--- Respondent(s)

¶93

(Cause Title is taken from CIS System)

¶94

For Petitioners	: Mr. Prateek Singh Thakur, Advocate and Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Dy. Advocate General
For Respective	: Mr. Alok Bakshi, Advocate, Ms. Sunita Jain,
Respondents	Advocate, Mr. R. L. Rajak, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate and Ms. Siddhidatri Kashi, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate

¶95

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶96

Order on Board

¶97

09/04/2026

¶98

The factual matrix as well as the core issue involved in all these writ petitions being identical, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, W.P.(C) No. 462 of 2021 is treated as the lead case for adjudication of the present batch of matters and in the said writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :

¶99

“10.1 That, the records pertaining to the allotment and cancellation of Shop with respect to the petitioner may kindly be called for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

¶100

10.2. That, the impugned notice dated 07.01.2021 may kindly be set

¶101

¶102

aside/quashed and the petitioner be allowed to continue with the peaceful possession of the shop in question.

¶103

10.3. That, any other relief / reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.”

¶104

The facts of the present case, as borne out from the pleadings, are that the petitioner, being aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities, has approached this Court. It is stated that after the formation of the State of Chhattisgarh, respondent No. 2 Corporation was constituted as a registered co-operative society on 30.10.2000 with the object of providing financial assistance, vocational training, and employment opportunities to members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, sanitary workers, backward classes, and minorities. The said society functions under the control of respondent No. 1 Department. For effective implementation of its schemes at the district level, District Level Co-operative Development Societies were established to impart training and skill development to unemployed youth. Respondent No. 3 is one such society constituted for District Bastar at Jagdalpur, wherein the Collector acts as the President and a full-time Chief Executive Officer administers its affairs. It is, therefore, contended that respondent No. 3 is an instrumentality of the State and its actions are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is further averred

¶105

¶106

that in the year 1993, respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement inviting applications for allotment of shops in Sanjay Market, Jagdalpur, under a Rent-Cum-Sale Scheme aimed at providing livelihood opportunities to unemployed youth belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other categories. As per the advertisement, a total of 28 shops were proposed to be allotted at a total consideration of Rs. 44,500/-, payable in monthly installments under mutually agreed conditions. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for allotment of a shop and was found eligible. Accordingly, an allotment letter dated 09.12.2003 was issued by respondent No. 3, whereby Shop No. 36 was allotted to the petitioner and possession thereof was handed over to her. The allotment was on a rent-cum-sale basis, and the petitioner duly deposited the entire consideration amount of Rs. 44,500/- in accordance with the terms of allotment. The receipts evidencing such payments have been brought on record. It is the case of the petitioner that since the date of allotment, she has been in continuous possession of the shop and has been running her business peacefully for nearly two decades without any interruption or dispute from the respondents. However, it is alleged that in the month of December, 2020, certain persons visited the shop premises in the absence of the petitioner, and thereafter, an eviction notice dated 07.01.2021 came to be issued alleging non-payment of outstanding rent amounting to Rs. 57,240/-. The petitioner contends that no prior notice, inquiry,

¶107

¶108

or opportunity of hearing was ever afforded to her before issuance of the said eviction notice. She further submits that she is unaware of the basis of the allegations made against her. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner submitted representations before respondents No. 3 and 4 requesting them not to disturb her possession over the shop. However, according to the petitioner, the authorities are intent upon evicting her from the said premises, which has constrained her to file the present writ petition before this Court.

¶109

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned eviction notice dated 07.01.2021 is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended that the action of the respondent authorities in issuing the said notice is without any basis and in violation of the settled principles of law. It is further submitted that pursuant to the advertisement and the allotment letter dated 09.12.2003, the petitioner had been validly allotted Shop No. 23 (earlier described as Shop No. 36) in Sanjay Market, Jagdalpur, under the RentCum-Sale Scheme. The petitioner has duly paid the entire consideration amount as well as the rent as required under the terms of allotment. Learned counsel emphasizes that there is no documentary evidence on record to establish that any rent remains outstanding against the petitioner. Despite this, the respondent authorities have, in a wholly arbitrary and fanciful manner, issued the impugned eviction notice alleging non-

¶110

¶111

payment of rent. Learned counsel further contends that before issuing such a drastic order of eviction, the respondents were under a legal obligation to issue a notice to the petitioner, call upon her to explain or substantiate the allegations, and conduct a proper inquiry into the matter. However, no such opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner. The impugned notice neither discloses the period for which the alleged rent is due nor provides any supporting documents, thereby rendering the action violative of principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that the lease period has not expired and the petitioner, having fulfilled all conditions of allotment, cannot be evicted in such an arbitrary manner. It is also argued that the impugned notice has been issued without proper authority and sanction. As per the governing framework, the Collector, being the competent authority and the one who originally sanctioned the allotment, is required to approve such action. Furthermore, no committee has been constituted or approval obtained for initiating proceedings against the petitioner. Thus, the impugned action, taken by an authority subordinate to the competent authority, is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned notice is vague and ambiguous, as it fails to specify the duration of the alleged outstanding rent or the specific clauses of the allotment terms that have been violated. No prior notice, warning, or communication was ever issued to the petitioner alleging breach of any condition. It is contended that since the

¶112

¶113

allotment was made under a State instrumentality, the respondents are expected to act in a fair, transparent, and reasonable manner, which has clearly not been adhered to in the present case. Lastly, it is submitted that the impugned eviction notice infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as it unjustly restricts her right to carry on her lawful business.

¶114

Mr. Alok Bakshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, submits that respondent No. 2, namely the C.G. Antyavasai Sahakari Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam Maryadit, was constituted as a co-operative society on 30.10.2000 with the objective of providing financial assistance and promoting economic development among members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is submitted that the said society functions under the control of the State Government and, for effective implementation of its schemes at the district level, cooperative development societies have been established, of which respondent No. 3 is one such entity. Learned counsel further submits that in the year 1993, respondent No. 3 had issued an advertisement for allotment of shops under the Rent-Cum-Sale Scheme for candidates belonging to SC, ST, and general categories. Under the said scheme, 28 shops were proposed to be allotted at a total consideration of Rs. 44,500/-, payable in monthly instalments. The petitioner applied for allotment and was allotted Shop No. 23 vide allotment letter dated 09.12.2003, and

¶115

¶116

possession of the said shop was handed over to her. However, it is emphasized that the allotment was temporary in nature and subject to strict compliance of the conditions stipulated in the allotment letter and agreement executed between the parties. It is contended that the petitioner has suppressed material facts and has not approached this Court with clean hands. Learned counsel submits that the allotment letter itself contained specific conditions, including mandatory payment of monthly instalments of Rs. 400/-, failing which the allotment was liable to be cancelled and the shop could be vacated. Other conditions prohibited change of purpose or transfer of the shop. It is submitted that the petitioner has violated these conditions by failing to make regular payment of instalments. Learned counsel further submits that the receipts filed by the petitioner as Annexure P-4 do not establish regular payment of dues, as they pertain only to certain months spread over different years and cumulatively reflect payment of approximately Rs. 14,000/- only. This clearly demonstrates that the petitioner was in persistent default. It is further submitted that a demand notice dated 16.03.2010 was issued to the petitioner calling upon her to deposit arrears amounting to Rs. 12,800/-, but the petitioner neither responded properly nor cleared the dues, and continued to default in making payments. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s contention regarding allotment pursuant to the 1993 advertisement is misconceived, inasmuch as the allotment was actually made in the year 2003, well beyond the last date

¶117

¶118

mentioned in the advertisement, and was governed by a separate agreement executed between the parties. The rights and obligations of the parties are thus strictly governed by the terms of the said agreement. Learned counsel further submits that a spot inspection was carried out on 04.09.2020, during which it was found that the petitioner had defaulted in payment of rent in violation of the conditions of allotment. Thereafter, the impugned eviction notice dated 07.01.2021 was issued, clearly specifying violation of several clauses of the agreement and indicating outstanding dues of Rs. 57,240/-. The petitioner was granted seven days’ time to vacate the premises, and the allotment stood cancelled due to breach of conditions. It is further contended that despite expiry of the notice period, the petitioner was not forcibly evicted. Instead, she submitted a representation dated 18.01.2021 and immediately thereafter filed the present petition. It is also submitted that the contention of the petitioner regarding lack of authority is misconceived, as both the allotment order dated 09.12.2003 and the impugned eviction notice dated 07.01.2021 were issued by the same Executive Officer, who was competent to do so. In conclusion, learned counsel submits that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any illegality or violation of statutory or fundamental rights arising from the impugned notice. The action of the respondents is in accordance with the terms of the agreement and applicable law, and the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. However, learned

¶119

¶120

counsel fairly submits that in the event the petitioner deposits the outstanding rent, the respondents shall consider her application sympathetically and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶121

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court proceeds to examine the controversy involved in the present writ petition.

¶122

The admitted factual position is that the petitioner was allotted a shop under the Rent-Cum-Sale Scheme vide allotment letter dated 09.12.2003 and has been in possession of the said shop for a considerable period. The impugned eviction notice dated 07.01.2021 has been issued by respondent No. 3 alleging violation of conditions of allotment, particularly on account of nonpayment of rent. However, from the record, it is evident that prior to issuance of the impugned notice, no show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner, nor was any opportunity of hearing afforded to her to explain the alleged default. It is a settled principle of law that any administrative or quasi-judicial action having civil consequences must adhere to the principles of natural justice. The requirement of affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing an adverse order is not an empty formality but a mandatory safeguard to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability in decision-making.

¶123

In the present case, the impugned notice has the effect of depriving the petitioner of her possession and means of livelihood,

¶124

¶125

and therefore, strict compliance with the principles of natural justice was incumbent upon the respondent authorities. This Court finds that the impugned order (Annexure P/1) has been issued in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no prior notice or opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. The respondents have proceeded to take a drastic action of eviction without conducting any proper inquiry or affording the petitioner an opportunity to rebut the allegations levelled against her. Such an action cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶126

Accordingly, taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the impugned order dated 07.01.2021 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 3 is hereby quashed . However, it is made clear that respondents No. 2 and 3 shall be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, if so advised. In the event such proceedings are initiated, the respondents shall ensure that due opportunity of hearing is afforded to the petitioner, and a reasoned order is passed strictly in accordance with law.

¶127

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions stands disposed of.

¶128

Sd/-

¶129

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶130

Shayna

Devnath Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devnath Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Leela Bai Patel

Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Lokesh Sinha

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Kuteliya Bai Gond

Chandrashekhar Ratnakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhilai Engineering Works Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Roop Kumar Sahu