Allahabad High Court
C/M Bhagwati Devi Sanskrit ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. on 21 July, 2015
Bench: Pankaj Mithal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17261 of 2015
Petitioner :- C/M Bhagwati Devi Sanskrit Uchchattar Madhyamik Vid. & Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gopal Ji Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
The institution of the petitioners has been refused grant in aid by the impugned order dated 15.09.2010.
The said order has been passed by Principal Secretary, Sanskrit Shiksha Anubhag, U.P. Shasan, in pursuance of the directions of this Court contained in the order dated 03.04.2014 passed in Writ -C No. 15335 of 2014, C/M Sri Deena Nath Tiwari Sanskrit Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya and another.
In disposing of the above writ petition this Court, had directed the respondent no. 1 of the said writ petition to consider the grievance of the petitioners with regard to entitlement of grant in aid after hearing the petitioners.
One of the ground on which the above order has been assailed is that without hearing the petitioners no order could legally be passed on the basis of talk on the telephone/mobile with the parties concern.
Learned Standing Counsel was directed to file counter affidavit within four weeks on 01.04.2015, but till date no counter affidavit has been filed.
Learned Standing Counsel after going through the impugned order is himself surprised and submits that there appears to be no hearing in the matter and the Adjudication Authority had simply talked with the parties on mobile. In such circumstances, the Court may quash the order and sent the matter back for reconsideration.
The Court is surprised at the manner in which the impugned order has been passed by non else than a Senior Officer of the Indian Administrative Service holding the post of the Principal Secretary.
The principles of natural justice are the backbone of the any administrative/judicial system. No order of any administrative authority or the court of law can be sustained until and unless it has been passed following the principles of natural justice. It is a cardinal principle of law that no one can be condemned unheard. Therefore, it is fundamental to give opportunity of hearing to the litigating parties before adjudicating their civil rights. This opportunity of hearing to the parties is not an empty formality and has to be an opportunity in real sense.
In this context, it is pertinent to note that the purpose of giving opportunity of hearing is to give prior notice to the parties of the date fixed so that the party affected may prepare himself on facts and the proposition of law to answer the contention of the other party or the queries raised by the Court or authority. No party can be taken by a surprise and asked to make submission without allowing sufficient time to enable him to prepare on the subject.
In addition to the above, it is cardinal to the principles of natural justice that the hearing of any matter has to be in presence of the respective parties. The adjudicating authority must ensure that the contesting parties are present before him when one of them is being heard to enable the other party to listen and make effective reply. Any hearing in the matter in the absence of the other party would again not be an effective hearing in true spirit of the principles of natural justice.
In the instant case, a plain reading of the impugned order, as has also been accepted by the learned Standing Counsel, reveals that the adjudicating authority had not given any notice to the parties fixing any date of hearing in the matter; rather he has simply chosen to converse with the parties on their mobile. It is only on the basis of the aforesaid talk with the parties on mobile that he proceeded to pass the impugned order.
The conversation he had with the parties on mobile was not in presence of the other party. The said party could not have any idea or estimation of the conversation that took place between adjudicating authority and the other party putting him to a loss to reply in defence. In this way, in effect no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the parties.
The Court hastens to add that an adjudicating authority in all fairness is not supposed to talk or discuss any matter which is before him for adjudication with any party much less the litigating party outside the office or in the absence of the other party.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as the Principal Secretary deviced a noval method of hearing which is completely alien to the legal jurisprudence; failed to give any notice to the parties for hearing fixing a date; and proceeded to talk about the matter with the parties on mobile phone in the absence of the other, it is plain and simple that he acted in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and against the doctrine of fair play in passing the impugned order.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.10.2014 passed by the Secretary, Sanskrit Shiksha Anubhag, U.P., Lucknow is hereby quashed and a writ of certiorari is accordingly directed to be issued with liberty to him to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed with no orders as to costs.
Order Date:- 21.7.2015
v.k.updh.
