Judgment 1. In view of a very short submission made at the Bar, namely, that the principles of natural justice have been grossly violated which mandatorily requires a notice to the respondent even in an appeal u/s. 60 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and thus the appellate order as contained in annexure-4 stands vitiated, it is not necessary to set forth the facts in detail. 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this application are as follows:- The petitioner who is a partner of Rama Rice Mills at Barauli has come up before this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India Praying to quash the order dated 23rd of May, 1988, passed by the District Magistrate, Rohtas (respondent No. 3) in an appeal u/s. 60 of the Act described and numbered as Suit No. 10 of 1988 as contained in annexure-4 to the writ petition. 3 It appears that vide an order dated 9-10-1987 the District Certificate Officer, Rohtas (respondent No. 2) held the proceedings in Certificate Case No. 6 of 1981-82/13/85-86 (Prabandhak, Bihar Rajya Khaddya Nigam, Rohtas V/s. Sri Chandra Shekhar Choubey) as not maintainable and dropped the same on the ground that there has been a fatal omission/failure to sign the requisition. Against the said order, as contained in annexure-3 to the writ petition, it appears that an appeal was filed by the District Manager (Respondent No. 1) before the District Magistrate (Respondent No. 3) u/s. 60 of the Act. It further appears that the appeal was put up for admission on 23rd of May, 1989 and on that day the appeal was heard. It further appears that there was delay in filing the said appeal in regard to which it was stated before Respondent No. 3 that the delay was caused because the certified copy of the order was supplied after several months. By an order of even date the delay in filing the appeal was condoned. It was admitted and even allowed and the case was remitted back to the Court of District Certificate Officer (Respondent No. 3) for disposal of merits. 4. By an order of even date the delay in filing the appeal was condoned. It was admitted and even allowed and the case was remitted back to the Court of District Certificate Officer (Respondent No. 3) for disposal of merits. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that no notice whatsoever was given to him in regard to the aforementioned appeal and in passing the said order behind his back and without giving any opportunity of hearing to him, the principle of natural justice has been grossly violated by Respondent No. 3. 5. Necessary facts in this regard have been stated in paragraph 22 of the Writ petition which are as follows:- "That it appears that much after the expiry of limitation and without explaining the delay respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before respondent No. 3 without depositing the statutory amount. The limitation petition is cryptic. Even the application for certified copy was filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 in the Court of respondent No. 2 after the expiry of the period of limitation. The order dated 9-10-87 was passed by respondent No. 2 in presence of the Advocate of the parties. According to respondent No. 1 the application for certified copy was filed on 19-121987. However, the proceeding before the respondent No. 3 was taken behind the back of the petitioner. No notice was issued to him. On 23-5-1988 respondent No. 3 behind the back of the petitioner without any notice to him condoned the delay, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of respondent No. 2 passed in favour of the petitioner". 6. This application was admitted on 6th July, 1989 and notice was issued to respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit. Paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit runs as follows:- "That as regards the averments made in paragraph No. 22 of the writ petition are not correct. It is wrong to say that the order by respondent No. 2 was passed in presence of the Advocate of both sides. Respondent No. 1 entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit. Paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit runs as follows:- "That as regards the averments made in paragraph No. 22 of the writ petition are not correct. It is wrong to say that the order by respondent No. 2 was passed in presence of the Advocate of both sides. The Advocate for the Respondent had no knowledge about the actual date of passing of the order and the order was never passed or communicated to the Advocate of this Respondent and no certified copy could be obtained earlier or in time and the Appeal was filed in proper with petition to condone the delay and the delay was explained." 7. Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the principles of natural justice have been grossly violated by the authority in passing the appellate order as contained in annexure-4 to the petition and that the stand of the petitioner, that no notice was ever issued to him by the appellate authority in connection with the hearing of the appeal, supported from a bare perusal of the impugned order itself in which it has not been stated any where that the petitioner was ever given any opportunity of hearing or that he was heard and thus the denial of Respondent No. 1 in paragraph 17 is incorrect. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits on the other hand that the petitioner has not produced any material to substantiate that no notice was ever given by the appellate authority or that he was not heard. 9. From a bare perusal of the order of the appellate authority it is clear that the petitioner was not heard and that the appeal was disposed of after condoning the delay at its admission stage itself. In my view in adopting the said course the appellate authority has grossly violated the principles of natural justice. It is a settled law that an appeal is continuance of the original action and thus all the formalities of giving notice has to be peremptorily complied with before passing of any order by the appellate authority even though not specifically provided u/s. 60 of the Act. 10. It is a settled law that an appeal is continuance of the original action and thus all the formalities of giving notice has to be peremptorily complied with before passing of any order by the appellate authority even though not specifically provided u/s. 60 of the Act. 10. In view of the infirmity aforementioned, the impugned order as contained in annexure-4 is quashed and the case is remitted back to the appellate authority for disposal of appeal in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to appear before the appellate authority (Respondent No. 3) on 4th of April, 1990 with whatever rejoinder he wants to file and thereafter Respondent No. 3 shall proceed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously in accordance with law. 11. Let a writ in the nature of certiorari issue accordingly. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.