Allahabad High Court
Vikash Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 6 April, 2022
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6226 of 2022
Petitioner :- Vikash Srivastava
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2.
The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia with the prayer to quash the order dated 25.01.2022 passed by the respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Varanasi by which transfer application filed by Mohan Lal/respondent no.3 was allowed.
It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that without waiting even for a considerable time and without application of mind transfer application filed by the Mohan Lal was allowed. It is further argued that private respondent Mohan Lal has no right to file the transfer application praying for transfer of Case No.1253 of 1975, under Section 134 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Varanasi because the impleadment application filed by the respondent Mohan Lal has not been allowed and he was not arrayed as party in the above mentioned case, so the private respondent had no right to file the transfer application, but the respondent no.2 has not considered it and has passed illegal order which is liable to be quashed.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From perusal of the order dated 25.01.2022, the Court is of the opinion that the aforesaid order was passed without giving any reasons whatsoever and only after stating the arguments raised by the counsel for the parties. The order is absolutely non speaking order.
The Supreme Court in case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs. M/s Shukla and Brothers reported at 2010 AIR SCW 3277 dealt with the principles of law while exercising power of judicial review on administrative action. It was held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that the doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials-
i) A person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard.
ii) The concerned authority should provide a fair and transparent procedure.
iii) The authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order.
Paragraph 9 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted below-
"9. The increasing institution of cases in all Courts in India and its resultant burden upon the Courts has invited attention of all concerned in the justice administration system. Despite heavy quantum of cases in Courts, in our view, it would neither be permissible nor possible to state as a principle of law, that while exercising power of judicial review on administrative action and more particularly judgment of courts in appeal before the higher Court, providing of reasons can never be dispensed with. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard. Secondly, the concerned authority should provide a fair and transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order. This has been uniformly applied by courts in India and abroad."
It appears from perusal of the record that the order impugned has been passed without providing any notice or opportunity to the petitioner.
Since the order impugned has been passed without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and since the order impugned has been passed in complete violation of audi alteram partem, the order dated 25.1.2022 passed by the respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Varanasi is liable to be set aside, the same is hereby set aside.
The respondent no.2 is directed to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 6.4.2022
Pramod Tripathi
