ORDER : Rajesh Shankar, J. In W.P.(C) No. 4574 of 2017, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.07.2017 passed in Eviction Case No. 119 of 2016 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) by the Court of the Competent Authority, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi (in short JSHB) and also Notice No. 1736 dated 17.04.2017 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), issued by the Executive Engineer, JSHB, Jamshedpur whereby, the petitioner has been directed to vacate the plot in question alleging that she has encroached upon it. 2. In W.P.(C) No. 4582 of 2017, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.02.2017 passed in Eviction Case No. 119 of 2016 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) by the Court of the Competent Authority, JSHB, Ranchi and also for quashing Notice No. 1745 dated 10.09.2016 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), issued by the Executive Engineer, JSHB, Jamshedpur whereby, the petitioner has been directed to vacate the plot in question alleging that he has encroached upon it. 3. In W.P.(C) No. 4588 of 2017, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.07.2017 passed in Eviction Case No. 119 of 2016 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) by the Court of the Competent Authority, J.S.H.B, Ranchi and also for quashing Notice No. 1742 dated 17.04.2017 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), issued by the Executive Engineer, JSHB, Jamshedpur whereby, the petitioner has been directed to vacate the plot in question alleging that she has encroached upon it. 4. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have claimed that as per the oral instruction of the concerned authority of the JSHB, Jamshedpur, they constructed their houses and have been residing in the same with their family for several years. They have further claimed that one B.K. Lal, Executive Officer of the JSHB, had assured that their plots would be regularized in their favour in future. The petitioners, in support of their possession, have filed some documents i.e. municipality receipts, electricity bills, Aadhar Cards etc. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 21.07.2017 has been passed without issuing any notice to the petitioners and, thus, the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been residing over the said plots for more than two decades without any interference from any corner including the respondent- JSHB. 6. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been residing over the said plots for more than two decades without any interference from any corner including the respondent- JSHB. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the JSHB submits that the impugned orders of eviction have been passed, as the plots in question were never allotted to the petitioners. On perusal of the impugned orders passed in Eviction Case No. 119 of 2016, it would be evident that the notices issued to the petitioners could not be served upon them, as their doors were found closed. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. It appears that the impugned notices were not properly served upon the petitioners. The impugned orders of eviction were passed ex-parte. The petitioners have claimed that they have been residing on the plot in question for several years. Since the petitioners did not appear in Eviction Case No. 119 of 2016, they did not get opportunity to present their cases in the eviction proceeding. The principle of audi alteram partem is one of the pivotal concepts of the principles of natural justice. It simply implies that a person must be given an opportunity to defend himself. This principle is a sine qua non for any decision making process adversely affecting the interest of any person. The said principle has been applied In the field of administrative action to ensure fair play and justice to the affected persons. A person getting affected by any administrative decision has the right to be heard by the Government authority to ensure administrative transparency, expediency and to meet the ends of justice. The procedure adopted for eviction of the petitioners from their residential premises must be just and fair. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned orders cannot be legally sustained. The procedure adopted for eviction of the petitioners from their residential premises must be just and fair. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned orders cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 21.07.2017 passed in Eviction Case No. 119 of 2016 [Annexure-3 to W.P.(C) No. 4574 of 2017], Notice No. 1736 dated 17.04.2017 [Annexure-1 to W.P.(C) No. 4574 of 2017], order dated 27.02.2017 passed in Eviction Case No. 119 of 2016 [Annexure-3 to W.P.(C) No. 4582 of 2017], Notice No. 1745 dated 10.09.2016 [Annexure-1 to W.P.(C) No. 4582 of 2017], order dated 21.07.2017 passed in Eviction Case No. 119 of 2016 [Annexure-3 to W.P.(C) No. 4588 of 2017] and Notice No. 1742 dated 17.04.2017 [Annexure-1 to W.P.(C) No. 4588 of 2017], are, hereby, quashed and set aside. 9. The matter is remanded to the competent authority of the Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi to take a decision afresh by passing appropriate speaking and reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to represent their cases in the eviction proceeding. 10. It is made clear that the petitioners shall co-operate with the said authority in proper adjudication and disposal of the eviction case. 11. These writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of with aforesaid observations. 12. Consequently, I.A. No. 7156/2017 [W.P.(C) No. 4574 of 2017], I.A. No. 7157/2017 [W.P.(C) No. 4582 of 2017] & I.A. No. 7158/2017 [W.P. (C) No. 4588 of 2017] also stand disposed of.