Allowed

Rajesh Kesarwani, Idse v. Mes No. 300294 Sri Amit Kumar Mittal, and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Dec 2020WP(C)/5105/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a Central Administrative Tribunal order disposing of an application without hearing the petitioner. Holding the order violative of natural justice due to lack of hearing, the Gauhati High Court allowed the petition, set aside the tribunal's order, and remanded the matter for afresh hearing after notice.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned CAT order set aside; matter remanded to CAT for afresh hearing after notice; listing fixed for 04.12.2020.

Rajesh Kesarwani, Idse Vs Mes No. 300294… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010173422020

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/5105/2020

¶5

RAJESH KESARWANI, IDSE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICES, O/O COMMANDER WORKS ENGINEER DINJAN MILITARY STATION, DINJAN, ASSAM 786189

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

MES NO. 300294 SRI AMIT KUMAR MITTAL, AND 3 ORS. S/O SRI GOPAL MOHAN MITTAL MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICES. P-12/2 SECTOR D DINJAN MILITARY STATION, DINJAN, DIST DIBRUGARH, ASSAM 786189

¶8

2:UNION OF INDIA

¶9

3:THE ENGINEER IN CHARGE

¶10

4:SRI S.K REDDY IDS

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C KEYAL

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) MR. N. KOTISWAR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶15

ORDER

¶16

01.12.2020

¶17

[ N. Kotiswar Singh, CJ(Acting) ]

¶18

Heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/applicant, who has entered appearance by filing caveat and Mr. R.K. Dev Choudhury, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶19

2. In the present petition before us, the petitioner was the respondent No.4 in Original Application No.040/00245/2020 before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench. The claim of the petitioner (respondent No.4 before the CAT) is that apart from various legal issues which have been raised by him, the fact remains that the said Original Application No.040/00245/2020 was disposed of on the first day of admission on 18.11.2020 without hearing the petitioner/respondent No.4 and as such he has been greatly prejudiced by this order passed by the learned CAT, Guwahati Bench in the aforesaid Original Application.

¶20

3. Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 (Applicant in the Original Application), who has entered appearance by filing a caveat application, fairly admits the aforesaid position that the aforesaid Original Application No.040/00245/2020 was disposed on the first day of admission on 18.11.2020 without issuing notice to the private respondents therein including the present petitioner.

¶21

4. We, therefore, note that apart from the legal issues raised and decided by the learned

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

CAT of which we make no observation, the fact remains that a judicial order could not have been finally passed without hearing all the affected parties. In the present case, the matter relates to transfer of the respondent No.1/applicant as well as the writ petitioner (respondent No.4 before the CAT).

¶24

5. We are of the view that any order, howsoever, deserving it may be, ought to have been passed in the presence of the contesting parties, which having not done so, we hold that this impugned order dated 18.11.2020 passed by the learned CAT, Guwahati Bench, in Original Application No.040/00245/2020 cannot be legally sustained, as being violative of the principle of natural justice.

¶25

6. We are also mindful of the fact that one of the respondents in this petition, namely, Shri V.K. Reddy, IDSE (respondent No.4) is also not present before us today as we pass this order. However, in view of the order which we are passing now, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to him as well. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in presence of the counsel for the respondent No.1 (applicant before the CAT) allowing the petition only on the limited ground of the present petitioner (respondent No.4 before the CAT) of not being heard at the time of disposal of the Original Application No.040/00245/2020 and we remand the matter to the CAT, Guwahati Bench, for deciding afresh on merit after hearing all the necessary parties in this regard.

¶26

7. For the reasons discussed above, the present petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 18.11.2020 passed in Original Application No.040/00245/2020 and remand the matter before the learned CAT, Guwahati Bench for rehearing the matter afresh and decide the same after hearing all the parties in accordance with law.

¶27

Page No.# 4/4

¶28

8. Let the matter be listed before the learned CAT, Guwahati Bench on 04.12.2020 and all

¶29

the parties present today may appear before the learned CAT on 04.12.2020 before

¶30

proceeding in accordance with law.

¶31

Sd/- Manish Choudhury Sd/- N. Kotiswar Singh JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Rajesh Kesarwani, Idse v. Mes No. 300294 Sri Amit Kumar Mittal, and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kesarwani, Idse v. Mes No. 300294 Sri Amit Kumar Mittal, and 3 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

Khursidul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Abdul Kadir Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Smti Lakshmi Pathak Vs Mahananda Roy

Sri Ram Prasad Dutta Vs Smti. Sonali Dutta

Rinchin Tashi and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Arunachal Pradesh and 5 Ors.

Smti. Manalisha Bezbaruah Vs Sri Biju Bezbarooah