JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. 1. All these writ petitions being analogous, which have put to challenge an order dated 19-12-2019, passed by the learned Upa Lokayukta, Nagaland, followed by an order dated 17-09-2020, passed by the concerned Public Works Department, these are taken up for analogous hearing and are disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Before going to the issue which has arisen for determination, it would be convenient to narrate the facts of the case. However, since the challenge is structured mainly on the point of law, this Court may not be required to record the facts in detail of each of the cases. 3. The petitioners in these cases are the beneficiaries of certain actions of the Public Works Department pertaining to certain quarters in the area commonly known as PWD colony in Dimapur. It is the contention of the petitioners that the quarters were constructed long back in the year 1968-1969 and were in a dilapidated condition. Under those circumstances, the Department had taken a conscious decision for dismantling the buildings. Accordingly, the salvaged materials were put to auction in which the petitioners were the auction purchasers. The consideration paid to the Department has also been demonstrated by way of necessary receipts. In some petitions, the petitioners were also allotted the land on which the quarter stood where they claim to have made constructions and are residing there with their families. 4. However, pertaining to a vigilance case which was instituted in the year 2013, which culminated in an order of acquittal of the existing officer, the Upa Lokayukta had passed an order dated 19-12-2019 making certain directions for cancellation of the aforesaid orders followed by the order dated 17-09-2020 of the Department of such cancellation. It is contended that both the aforesaid orders were passed without giving the petitioners any opportunity of hearing. 5. I have heard Mr. Imti Longjem, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi, learned State counsel whereas Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned counsel has appeared for the Lokayukta. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the decision to dispose of salvaged materials and also for allotment of the land after such demolition was taken by the Department by following the due process of law. Veto V. Zhimomi, learned State counsel whereas Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned counsel has appeared for the Lokayukta. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the decision to dispose of salvaged materials and also for allotment of the land after such demolition was taken by the Department by following the due process of law. Reference has been made to an Inspection Report dated 03-11-2011 by the Department whereby no objection was conveyed for public auction. Pursuant to the same, a direction was issued on 04-11-2011 for disposal of the salvaged materials by the Executive Engineer to the SDO, PWD. Consequent thereto, the salvaged materials were put to auction which were purchased by the petitioners by making the necessary deposit. The learned counsel has also referred to an order dated 05-11-2011 to write off the materials. So far as the land after the demolition of the quarter, the same was also allotted to some of the petitioners where, as indicated above construction has been made and the said petitioners are residing there with their families. 7. The learned counsel has referred to a complaint dated 24-09-2013 by the Works and Housing Department leading to registration of a vigilance case. Consequently, a criminal case being RC-02/2013 was registered before the Special Judge. After trial, however, by judgment and order dated 30-01-2019, the existing Executive Engineer was acquitted and so far as the other accused was concerned namely the SDO, he had passed away during the proceedings. It is highlighted that none of the petitioners or their spouse who were government servants were made accused in the said criminal case. It is submitted that upon passing of the aforesaid judgment dated 30-01-2019, the proceeding initiated had culminated as there was no further appeal. However, the Upa Lokayukta vide order dated 19-12-2019 had re-opened the matter and had passed directions for cancellation of the dismantling order and also the orders of allotment of the land. It is submitted that the aforesaid order was passed without affording the petitioners any opportunity of hearing. Consequent thereto, the Department vide order dated 17-09-2020 had cancelled the writing off order dated 05-11-2011 which consequently affected the order of purchase made by the petitioners in the auction and also regarding allotment of the land. It is submitted that even the order of the Department was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing or any notice. 8. Consequent thereto, the Department vide order dated 17-09-2020 had cancelled the writing off order dated 05-11-2011 which consequently affected the order of purchase made by the petitioners in the auction and also regarding allotment of the land. It is submitted that even the order of the Department was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing or any notice. 8. By drawing the attention of this Court to the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the under the said Act, the Lokayukta was empowered only to make recommendations. However, vide the impugned order dated 19-12-2019, directions have been given for cancellation of the writing off order as well as the allotment orders. To emphasize that the contents of the order dated 19-12-2019 was in the form of direction, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the subsequent orders dated 15-05-2020, 26-05-2020 and 28-08-2020 whereby the directions were asked to be complied with and report thereof be submitted. 9. On the aspect of violation of the principles of natural justice, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is an admitted position that at no point of time, the Upa Lokayukta had either issued notice or given any opportunity to the petitioners before passing the order dated 19-12-2019. The same procedure was also adopted by the Department while passing the impugned order dated 17-09-2020 as no opportunity was granted to the petitioners. It is submitted that the impugned orders of the Upa Lokayukta dated 19-12-2019 and the order of the Department dated 17-09-2020 are not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside and quashed. 10. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following case laws: 1. Amit Shankar vs. State of Nagaland and Others, WP (C) No. 74/2018 wherein it has been held that powers of Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta under Section 25 of the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017 is purely recommendatory in nature. 2. Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election Commissioner cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of an affidavit or otherwise. 3. State of Punjab vs. Bandeep Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 724 wherein it has been held that an authority cannot be permitted to travel beyond the stand adopted and expressed by it in the impugned action. 4. 2. Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election Commissioner cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of an affidavit or otherwise. 3. State of Punjab vs. Bandeep Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 724 wherein it has been held that an authority cannot be permitted to travel beyond the stand adopted and expressed by it in the impugned action. 4. D.K. Yadav vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (1993) 3 SCC 259 wherein it has been held that it is a fundamental rule of law that no decision must be taken which will affect the right of any person without first being informed of the case and giving him/her an opportunity of putting forward his/her case. An order involving civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. 5. Cantonment Board vs. Taramani Devi, 1992 (2) SCC 501 wherein it has been held that no order shall be passed at the back of a person prejudicial in nature to him, when it entails civil consequences. 6. Sahara India (Firm) vs. CIT, (2008) 14 SCC 151 wherein it has been held even an administrative order or decision in matters involving civil consequences has to be made consistent with the rule of natural justice. 11. Per contra, Mr. T.B. Jamir the learned counsel for the Lokayukta, has, in his usual fairness conceded that the power of the Lokayukta is only to recommend. At the same breath, however, he submits that it would be incorrect on the part of the petitioners to contend that the order dated 19-12-2019 is a direction. It is submitted that the Department never took the same order as a direction but had only acted on the recommendation and had subsequently issued the order dated 17-09-2020. On the aspect of violation of the principles of natural justice, the learned counsel has submitted that the functioning of the Lokayukta is akin to an inquiry wherein there is no requirement to give any opportunity of hearing to any affected person. It is submitted that the Upa Lokayukta or Lokayukta only submits a report based on such enquiry and the Department is to act upon such report. 12. The learned counsel has also referred to Section 36(3) of the Act on the aspect of taking up of the matter by the Lokayukta. It is submitted that the Upa Lokayukta or Lokayukta only submits a report based on such enquiry and the Department is to act upon such report. 12. The learned counsel has also referred to Section 36(3) of the Act on the aspect of taking up of the matter by the Lokayukta. It is submitted that as per the aforesaid provision of law, all inquiries and investigation and other disciplinary proceeding pending before the Nagaland State Vigilance Commission which have not been disposed of shall stand transferred and be continued by the Lokayukta. 13. Supporting the submission of the learned counsel for the Lokayukta, the learned State counsel has submitted that the recommendation of the Lokayukta was followed leading to issuance of the order dated 17-09-2020. The learned State counsel has, however, fairly conceded that before passing the order dated 17-09-2020, no opportunity was granted to the petitioners. It is, however, submitted that since such order was passed on a recommendation made by the Lokayukta based upon an inquiry, such opportunity may not be necessary. 14. In his rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioners has dated 15-05-2020, 26-05-2020 and 20-08-2020, in the affidavit in opposition filed by the State respondents, the pleadings, more particularly in paragraph 4 would also demonstrate that it was construed to be a direction by the State Government. 15. The rival contentions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. 16. The root of this case is a communication dated 24-09-2013 by the Works and Housing Department to the Vigilance Department. As observed above, based upon the said complaint, a criminal case was registered under Section 409 of the IPC read with Section 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is to be seen that in the aforesaid proceeding, the present petitioners or their relatives who were government servants were not even made accused. The said proceeding was against two officers, namely, one SDO and one Executive Engineer. The judgment dated 30-01-2019 would reflect that during the proceeding, the concerned SDO had passed away and so far as the other officer was concerned, namely, the Executive Engineer, he was acquitted. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid judgment had attained finality as no appeal was preferred by the State. 17. The judgment dated 30-01-2019 would reflect that during the proceeding, the concerned SDO had passed away and so far as the other officer was concerned, namely, the Executive Engineer, he was acquitted. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid judgment had attained finality as no appeal was preferred by the State. 17. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the complaint was lodged in the year 2013 and the Nagaland Lokayukta had come into operation in the year 2018 in accordance with the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017. Though reliance has been placed on Section 36(3) of the Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is only the pending matters Commission. There is nothing on record to even suggest that the proceeding was pending before the Nagaland State Vigilance Commission and rather, the judgment dated 30-01-2019 would demonstrate that the proceeding which was initiated had culminated. Under those circumstances, the action of the Lokayukta to re-open the matter is itself a matter of debate. In the considered opinion of this Court, the jurisdiction exercised by the Lokayukta in re-opening the case by taking recourse to Section 36(3), as submitted, appears to be itself erroneous. 18. So far as the contention that the Lokayukta had issued a direction, the learned counsel for the Lokayukta had fairly conceded that though the expression ‘directed’ has been used, it should be construed as recommendation. This Court would also agree on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Lokayukta that since the functions of the Lokayukta is to make an inquiry, there may not be a mandatory requirement to give any opportunity to the concerned party. 19. The aforesaid requirement, however, would be a mandatory requirement so far as the action taken by the administration is concerned. In the instant cases, the order dated 17-09-2020 passed by the Department is admittedly without any notice or opportunity. The said order having adverse civil consequences upon the petitioners, the Department was under a legal obligation to issue a notice and to give an effective opportunity to the petitioners to defend their cases. On this count itself, the impugned order dated 17-09-2020 is unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. 20. The said order having adverse civil consequences upon the petitioners, the Department was under a legal obligation to issue a notice and to give an effective opportunity to the petitioners to defend their cases. On this count itself, the impugned order dated 17-09-2020 is unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. 20. The case laws cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners would fortify the aforesaid conclusion reached by this Court with regard to the adherence to the principles of natural justice before passing any adverse orders by the authorities. 21. Under the facts and circumstances aforesaid and the discussions made, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 19-12-2019 passed by the learned Lokayukta so far as it constitutes a direction is unsustainable in law. Further, the consequential action taken by the Department in the form of the order dated 17-09-2020 is unsustainable and accordingly set aside. 22. All the writ petitions accordingly stand allowed and disposed of. 23. No order as to cost.