[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Vivekanand Puri Vikas Parishad Regd vs Government Of The National Capital ... on 24 March, 2026
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7477/2025 and CM APPL. 33400/2025
Date of decision: 24.03.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
VIVEKANAND PURI VIKAS PARISHAD REGD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tarun Sharma, Mr. Abid Ali, Mr.
Manek Sharma and Mr. Karrtik
Sharma Advocates.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF
DELHI & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr Abhinav Singh Advocate
Mr P.S Singh CGSC, Mr. Rajneesh
Sharma, Ms Shivangi Sharma,
Advocates for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-
"a) allow the present Writ Petition in favour of the Petitioner and
against the Respondents;
b) issue an appropriate Writ of Certiorari or Directions against the
Respondents, more particularly the Respondent No.2: Sub-Divisional
Magistrate: Sub-Division Kotwali, to direct the setting aside/ quashing of
the Impugned Notices bearing No. F. SOM/ KOT/ DPCC/ RECOVERY/
2025, dated 17.04.2025, which have been issued to the Resident
Members of the Petitioner Residents' Welfare Association namely
Vivekanand Puri Vikas Parishad (Registered)/ Vivekanand Puri
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:28.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
14:05:40
KUMAR KAURAV
Development Council (Registered) for the Recovery of Rs.30,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Thousands Only) levied as Environmental Compensation
in an arbitrary & illegal manner without following the Due Process of
Law."
2. The sole grievance raised by the petitioner is that no opportunity of
hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order.
3. The Supreme Court in Biecco Lawrie Ltd. and Anr. v. State of West
Bengal and Anr.,1 has observed that both sides in a dispute being heard is
fundamental to fair procedure. Notice being required to be served was
further considered as an essential ingredient of fair hearing. The material
portion of the judgement reads as under:
"24. It is fundamental to fair procedure that both sides should be heard--
audi alteram partem i.e. hear the other side and it is often considered that it
is broad enough to include the rule against bias since a fair hearing must be
an unbiased hearing. One of the essential ingredients of fair hearing is that
a person should be served with a proper notice i.e. a person has a right to
notice. Notice should be clear and precise so as to give the other party
adequate information of the case he has to meet and make an effective
defence. Denial of notice and opportunity to respond result in making the
administrative decision as vitiated."
4. In Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy,2 the Supreme Court in eloquent
terms described adherence to principle of natural justice to be of "supreme
importance" when actions involving civil consequences are involved. Para.
10 of the said decision is extracted as under:
"10. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognised by all
civilised States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body
embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any
administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These
principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is
(2009) 10 SCC 32.
(2005) 6 CC 321.
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:28.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
14:05:40
KUMAR KAURAV
commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should
be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must
be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively
of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be
adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence
of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed
becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be
put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him.
This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after
all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance
and shades with time. When the historic document was made at
Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this principle found
its way into the "Magna Carta". The classic exposition of Sir Edward
Coke of natural justice requires to "vocate, interrogate and adjudicate".
In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works the
principle was thus stated: (ER p. 420)
"[E]ven God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was
called upon to make his defence. „Adam‟ (says God), „where art thou?
Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou
shouldest not eat?‟"
Since then the principle has been chiselled, honed and refined, enriching
its content. Judicial treatment has added light and luminosity to the
concept, like polishing of a diamond."
5. There is nothing on record to controvert the primary submission made
by the petitioner regarding affording of opportunity of hearing. In light of
the facts of the instant case and the law discussed above, the Court, instead
of going into the merits of the matter, deems it appropriate to set aside the
same only on this ground alone.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is
remitted back to the respondent to decide it afresh after extending
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If the petitioner, thereafter, is
aggrieved by the said order, it shall be at liberty to take appropriate recourse
in accordance with law.
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:28.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
14:05:40
KUMAR KAURAV
7. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands disposed
along with all pending applications.
8. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
MARCH 24, 2026
Nc
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:28.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
14:05:40
KUMAR KAURAV
