Narendra Singh Dhakad S/O Shyamlal Dhakad Vs the State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Narendra Singh Dhakad S/O Shyamlal Dhakad Vs the State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 20.07.2018 quashed and set aside; matter remitted to the respondent to pass a fresh order after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner; the entire exercise to be completed within four weeks of receipt of the certified copy of the order; writ petition, stay application and all pending application(s) disposed of accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 20.07.2018, by which the respondents decided the petitioner's application without any notice or opportunity of hearing, violated the principles of natural justice and is sustainable in law. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court found that prior to passing the order dated 20.07.2018, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and the impugned order was passed straightaway, which resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Ratio / Principle

The Court reiterated the settled proposition that before passing any adverse order against a person, it is incumbent upon the authorities concerned to provide him an opportunity of hearing.

Key takeaways

Since in the instant case no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner, the Court concluded that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.ratio¶24
The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 20.07.2018 and remitted the matter to the respondent to pass a fresh order, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Narendra Singh Dhakad v. The State of Rajasthan (Department of Mining and Geology functionaries) — S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14600/2023, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench; Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand; order dated 12/07/2025. The petitioner's application had been decided by an order dated 20.07.2018 passed by the respondents without any notice or opportunity of hearing. Counsel for the petitioner contended that this breached the principles of natural justice; counsel for the respondent could not controvert. Applying the settled proposition stated by the Court that authorities must afford an opportunity of hearing before passing any adverse order, the Court found the impugned order unsustainable, quashed and set it aside, and remitted the matter to the respondent to pass a fresh order after due opportunity of hearing, the entire exercise to be completed within four weeks of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The writ petition, together with the stay application and all pending application(s), stands disposed of accordingly.

[2025:RJ-JP:25874]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14600/2023

Narendra Singh Dhakad S/o Shyamlal Dhakad, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village Acholi, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur.

----Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Mining And Geology, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

The Director, Directorate Of Mines And Geology, Khanji Bhawan, Shashtri Circle, Udaipur.

The Additional Director Mines, Department Of Mining And Geology, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

The Superintendent Mining Engineer, Department Of Mining And Geology, Bharatpur, Khanji Bhawan, Supermarket, Bharatpur.

The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mining And Geology, Roopwas, Opposite Police Station, Dholpur Road, Roopwas, District Bharatpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajeet Bhandari-Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ankit Agarwal

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveer Sharma for Mr. Jaivardhan Singh Shekhawat

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

12/07/2025

Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.07.2018 passed by the respondents by which the application submitted by the petitioner has been decided without affording him opportunity of hearing.

[2025:RJ-JP:25874]

[CW-14600/2023]

(2 of 3)

Counsel for the petitioner submits that before passing the aforesaid order, neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to him and straightway the order impugned has been passed, which has resulted in volition of the principles of natural justice, so the present writ petition may be disposed of by issuing direction to the respondents to grant him an opportunity of hearing and pass fresh order.

Counsel for the respondent is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 4. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter and looking to the fact that prior to passing the aforesaid order dated 20.07.2018, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and straightway the impugned order has been passed, which has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice.

It is the settled proposition of law that before passing any adverse order against a person, it is incumbent to the authorities concerned to provide him an opportunity of hearing but herein the instant case, no opportunity of hearing was provided to him, hence under these circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent to pass fresh order, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

The present writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

[2025:RJ-JP:25874]

[CW-14600/2023]

(3 of 3)

Needless to observe that the entire excerise would be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

Ashu/37