Judgment :- 1. The writ petition is filed challenging G.O.Ms.No.380, Higher Education (B2) Department, dated 6.12.2010 on a short issue that there has been gross violation of the principles of natural justice, arbitrariness and capriciousness in passing the impugned government order. It is also challenged on the ground that there is no application of mind and whatever has been stated in the government order is a verbatim reproduction of the statement made by the Commissioner of Technical Education, who has sent a proposal for cancellation of the No Objection Certificate. The Government has in turn not applied its mind, as to whether such recommendation of the Commissioner of Technical Education should be accepted or not. Without notice to the petitioner the impugned proceedings has been passed. On this plea the writ petition is canvassed. 2.1. The brief facts are as follows: The petitioner is a trust. They sought for and obtained a No Objection Certificate from the Higher Education Department to start a Polytechnic College. The No Objection Certificate was granted vide G.O.Ms.No.150, Higher Education (B2) Department, dated 11.6.2010 and the said order reads as follows: "ORDER The Managing Trustee, Muthu Memorial Educational Trust, 61/115, Bharathi Nagar, Veeravanallur, Tirunelveli-627 426 has submitted a proposal for issue of No Objection Certificate for establishment of a new Self-financing Polytechnic College during the year 2010-2011. The Inspection Committee duly constituted by the Commissioner of Technical Education has inspected the institution and submitted its report. 2. The Committee has recommended the establishment of "Sri Balaji Polytechnic Institute, S.No.309/5, Knowledge Temple Campus, Shri Ramachandra Nagar, Cherankoilpattu Village, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli-627 414" by Muthu Memorial Educational Trust, 61/115, Bharathi Nagar, Veeravanallur, Tirunelveli 627 426. As the Trust has fulfilled the major requirements, the Commissioner of Technical Education has recommended the proposal. 3. The Government have examined the proposal of the Commissioner of Technical Education and decided to accept it. They accordingly convey their No Objection for establishing a new Self-financing Polytechnic College from the year 2010-2011 in the name and style of "Sri Balaji Polytechnic Institute, S.No.309/5, Knowledge Temple Campus, Shri Ramachandra Nagar, Cherankoilpattu Village, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli-627 414" by Muthu Memorial Educational Trust, 61/115, Bharathi Nagar, Veeravanallur, Tirunelveli-627 426." 2.2. On 12.7.2010, the Department of Technical Education gave a notice of inspection by the Inspection Committee and called upon the petitioner to make certain compliance. On 12.7.2010, the Department of Technical Education gave a notice of inspection by the Inspection Committee and called upon the petitioner to make certain compliance. Earlier the petitioner by letter dated 8.7.2010 requested the Expert Committee to do the needful for starting Polytechnic College for the academic year 2010-2011 and in furtherance, the petitioner submitted an affidavit of declaration and affidavit of undertaking. 2.3. The Southern Regional Office of the All India Council for Technical Education issued a Letter of Intent for starting the Polytechnic College and to facilitate the further processing of the proposal for grant of approval certificate. The requirements for processing the petitioner's claim were indicated in the Letter of Intent. It was further stated that after the Expert Committee's visit, the case of the petitioner will be considered for issue of Letter of Approval (LOA) for the academic year 2010-2011. 2.4. Thereafter, on 15.8.2010, the Commissioner of Technical Education addressed a letter to the petitioner informing them that inspection team has not recommended the case of the petitioner/trust to start the Polytechnic College, pointing out certain deficiencies which are to be rectified. Time was granted till 20.8.2010 and in response thereto, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 18.8.2010 to the Commissioner of Technical Education setting out the details of rectification made, with a request to permit the starting of the course for the academic year 2010-2011. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Technical Education caused another letter bearing Letter No.50260/H4/2009, dated 20.8.2010 to the petitioner informing them about the constitution of the inspection team and the documents to be produced. 2.5. When the matter stood thus, the impugned government order came to be passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, Higher Education Department cancelling the No Objection Certificate granted on 11.6.2010 and the primary reason for passing the government order impugned is the letter from the Commissioner of Technical Education dated 28.9.2010. Hence, the present writ petition is filed on the plea as set out above. 3. Heard Smt.Narmada Sampath, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 4. In this case, the Government accepts the issuance of No Objection Certificate to the petitioner/Trust for establishing a new self-financing Polytechnic College for the academic year 2010-2011 on the basis of the proposal sent by the Commissioner of Technical Education, which forms part of the impugned government order itself. 5. 4. In this case, the Government accepts the issuance of No Objection Certificate to the petitioner/Trust for establishing a new self-financing Polytechnic College for the academic year 2010-2011 on the basis of the proposal sent by the Commissioner of Technical Education, which forms part of the impugned government order itself. 5. On going through the government order, it is apparent that the entire content is the letter of the Commissioner of Technical Education, who, after referring to various correspondence between the various departments and the petitioner/Trust, comes to the conclusion that petitioner indulged in fabrication and submitted the re-inspection report. The order refers to certain documents of the private courier and also the records of the Director of Technical Education to state that there was no delivery of the re-inspection report by the authorised person giving rise to a suspicion that the trust member had collected the actual re-inspection report of the Committee from the courier office and submitted a fake report on 30.8.2010. This appears to be the primary reason for passing the impugned order. 6. It is to be noticed that the material data which are relied by the department have been collected behind the back of the petitioner to level very serious allegations in the nature of tampering of documents. Serious allegations are made against the petitioner without issuing a formal notice as to the nature of action proposed, before proceeding to cancel the No Objection Certificate already issued. The Government, which had earlier issued the No Objection Certificate, while levelling serious allegations should have thought it fit to put the petitioner on notice and served them the copy of the proposal for cancellation of No Objection Certificate. The report of the Commissioner of Technical Education should have been independently considered by the government before proceeding to cancel the same. In any event, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to rebut the same. 7. The entire proceeding resulting in the passing of the impugned order has been done behind the back of the petitioner without giving them a reasonable opportunity of rebutting the stand taken by the Commissioner of Technical Education who has heaped substantial allegations against the petitioner/trust. The Government, on its part, relied upon the said report of the Commissioner of Technical Education without demur and gave a finding as follows: "4. The Government, on its part, relied upon the said report of the Commissioner of Technical Education without demur and gave a finding as follows: "4. The Government after careful examination, cancel the No Objection Certificate issued to the M/s.Muthu Memorial Educational Trust functioning at No.61/115, Bharathi Nagar, Veeravanallur, Tirunelveli in the G.O. first read above, for starting the proposed Institution namely, "Sri Balaji Polytechnic Institute", S.No.309/5, Knowledge Temple Campus, Shri Ramachandra Nagar, Cherankoilpattu Village, Cheranmadevi, Tirunelveli – 627 414. The Government also direct that the Trusts which indulged in the criminal action will be considered as black listed and will not be considered in future also for running educational institutions." 8. In other words, the report of the Commissioner of Technical Education on the allegations of forgery and tampering of records appears to be the only reason for passing the impugned government order. When such gross allegations in the nature of forgery and tampering of records are made, it is incumbent on the part of the Government to serve a notice supported by records relating to the allegations and thereafter hear the petitioner/trust on merits. But, unfortunately, the elementary principle of audi alteram partem has not been followed in this case. 9. The principle of audi alteram partem is the basic concept of principle of natural justice and it connotes that a person must be given an opportunity to defend himself. This principle covers various phases right from issuing of notice to the passing of the final order. The principle of audi alteram partem contemplates that a person against whom action is sought to be taken should be given a fair hearing, which includes: i) A notice giving sufficient time clearly indicating the allegations against the person; ii) Such person should be permitted to present his case and produce evidence; iii) All the adverse evidence relied on should be disclosed to the person; He should be permitted to rebut the evidence put against him; and thereafter, a speaking order with reasons should be passed. Any violation of any one of the phases enunciated above, would cause substantial prejudice to the affected party and would result in violation of the principle of audi alteram partem. 10. Any violation of any one of the phases enunciated above, would cause substantial prejudice to the affected party and would result in violation of the principle of audi alteram partem. 10. To fortify the said view, it is appropriate to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in K.I.Shephard v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 431 , wherein after referring to a plethora of earlier judgments, it was held as under: "12. Mullan in Fairness: The New Natural Justice has stated: “Natural justice co-exists with, or reflected, a wider principle of fairness in decision-making and that all judicial and administrative decision-making and that all judicial and administrative decision-makers had a duty to act fairly.” In the case of State of Orissa v. Dr (Ms) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269 , this Court observed: “It is true that the order is administrative in character, but even an administrative order which involves civil consequences as already stated, must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice after informing the first respondent of the case of the State, the evidence in support thereof and after giving an opportunity to the first respondent of being heard and meeting or explaining the evidence. No such steps were admittedly taken: the High Court was, in our judgment, right in setting aside the order of the State.” In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262 , a Constitution Bench quoted with approval the observations of Lord Parker in Re: (H) K (an infant),(1967) 1 All ER 226 (QBD). Hegde, J. speaking for the Court stated: (SCC p. 272, para 20) “Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi-judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice. Till very recently it was the opinion of the courts that unless the authority concerned was required by the law under which it functioned to act judicially there was no room for the application of the rules of natural justice. The validity of that limitation is now questioned. If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice one fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to administrative enquiries. The validity of that limitation is now questioned. If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice one fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to administrative enquiries. Oftentimes it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial enquiries. Enquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasi-judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi-judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more far-reaching effect than a decision in a quasi-judicial enquiry.” These observations in A.K. Kraipak case were followed by another Constitution Bench of this Court in Chandra Bhavan Boarding and Lodging, Bangalore v. State of Mysore, (1969) 3 SCC 84 . In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 664 , a three Judge Bench of this Court examined this aspect of natural justice. Sarkaria, J. who spoke for the court, stated: “During the last two decades, the concept of natural justice has made great strides in the realm of administrative law. Before the epoch-making decision of the House of Lords in Ridge v. Baldwin, 1964 AC 40 it was generally thought that the rules of natural justice apply only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings; and for the purpose, whenever a breach of the rule of natural justice was alleged, courts in England used to ascertain whether the impugned action was taken by the statutory authority or tribunal in the exercise of its administrative or quasi-judicial power. In India also, this was the position before the decision dated February 7, 1967, of this Court in Dr Binapani Dei case; wherein it was held that even an administrative order or decision in matters involving civil consequences, has to be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. This supposed distinction between quasi-judicial and administrative decisions, which was perceptibly mitigated in Binapani Dei case was further rubbed out to a vanishing point in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India. . . .” On the basis of these authorities it must be held that even when a State agency acts administratively, rules of natural justice would apply. This supposed distinction between quasi-judicial and administrative decisions, which was perceptibly mitigated in Binapani Dei case was further rubbed out to a vanishing point in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India. . . .” On the basis of these authorities it must be held that even when a State agency acts administratively, rules of natural justice would apply. As stated, natural justice generally requires that persons liable to be directly affected by proposed administrative acts, decisions or proceedings be given adequate notice of what is proposed so that they may be in a position (a) to make representations on their own behalf; (b) or to appear at a hearing or enquiry (if one is held); and (c) effectively to prepare their own case and to answer the case (if any) they have to meet." 11. In the case on hand, the impugned government order blacklists the petitioner/trust and the same virtually prevents the petitioner/trust from running an educational institution. When such an order is passed foreclosing the future of an institution, it is manifest that a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard should be given. It is beyond any cavil that the petitioner/trust was not given any notice; nor the evidence collected behind the back of the petitioner to pass the impugned order were given to them, to enable them to rebut the same; nor any enquiry report furnished to them. The Government, which ought to have applied its mind independently, has merely reproduced the statement of the Commissioner of Technical Education in the impugned government order and cancelled the No Objection Certificate, besides ordering blacklisting. The impugned order therefore deserves to be set aside for the aforesaid reasons. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned government order is set aside. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.2 of 2011 is closed.