Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1341 (ALL)

Jai Ram Yadav v. State of U. P.

2020-11-18

SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 and Sri Ram Gopal Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being finally heard without calling for a counter affidavit. 3. The writ petition has been filed seeking to challenge a communication/order dated 01.09.2020 whereunder the petitioner has been directed to deposit an amount pursuant to an enquiry report dated 04.09.2016 within a specified time period failing which proceedings for recovery would be initiated against him. The aforementioned enquiry report dated 04.09.2016 has also been challenged in the writ petition. 4. There is nothing in the impugned order dated 01.09.2020 or in the enquiry report dated 04.09.2016 to show that any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the aforesaid order and also during the course of the enquiry. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 does not dispute the fact that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the aforesaid impugned order or during the enquiry proceedings. 5. In administrative law the principle of audi alteram partem has been held to be a fundamental principle of the rules of natural justice. This requires the maker of a decision to give prior notice of the proposed decision to the persons affected and an opportunity to make a representation. The exercise of a power which affects the rights of an individual must be exercised in a manner which is fair and just and not arbitrarily or capriciously. An administrative order involving civil consequences must necessarily be made in conformity with rules of natural justice. Any decision which has been made without compliance of the aforementioned fundamental principle of natural justice i.e. the rule of audi alteram partem, cannot be sustained. For the aforesaid proposition of law reference may be made to the decisions in Mahipal Singh Tomar v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2013) 16 SCC 771 Ridge v Baldwin, (1963) 2 All ER 66 (HL) Chief Constable of North Wales Plice v Evans, (1982) All ER 141 (HL) State of Orissa v Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269 U.P. Warehousing Corporation v Vijay Narayan Vajpayee, (1980) 3 SCC 459 . 6. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that a show cause notice shall be issued to the petitioner and he shall be given an opportunity to submit his objections and thereafter a final order in accordance with law shall be passed. 7. In view of the aforesaid the impugned order dated 01.09.2020 passed by the respondent no.2 is held to be unsustainable being violative of the rule of audi alteram partem which is a fundamental principle of natural justice. Consequently the impugned order dated 01.09.2020 is quashed. 8. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2 to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner within three weeks stating therein specific points. The petitioner shall have four weeks thereafter to submit his reply/objections. The respondent no.2 shall, thereafter, pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within next four weeks. 9. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case of the petitioner. 10. It is further made clear that this order shall not prevent the respondent authorities to recover the dues in regard to the unsupplied custom-milled-rice (CMR) from the respondent rice-millers.