Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kumkum Bhadauriya vs Bhagwan Sharma Deceased Through Lrs 1) ... on 30 January, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1984
1 WP-38472-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 30 th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 38472 of 2024
SMT. KUMKUM BHADAURIYA
Versus
BHAGWAN SHARMA DECEASED THROUGH LRS 1) SMT. MUNNI DEVI
AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prakash Chandra Chandil - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Manas Dubey - Advocate for the respondent No.3.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
"It is therefore most humbly prayed kindly allowing the
petition impugned order annexure P-1 passed by the Additional
Commissioner, Gwalior Division Gwalior may kindly be set aside.
Any other suitable relief, order or direction in the fact and
circumstance of the case this Hon'ble court deems fit may also be
passed."
2. Assailing the impugned order dated 22.08.2022 to be violative of
principle of natural justice and without granting opportunity of hearing and without
notice him, the present petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the
respondent No.3 has submitted before this Court that the respondent No.1 had
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1984
2 WP-38472-2024
preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division,
Gwalior on 28.07.2022 against order dated 07.09.2020 passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Division Morar, District Gwalior, which was registered as Case
No.282/22-23/Appeal. Alongwith the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act has also been filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
4. It was further submitted that while allowing the application under Section
5 of the Limitation Act by way of impugned order dated 22.08.2022, the
Additional Commissioner had not issued any notice and also had not provided any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thus, the order impugned is liable to be
quashed and the matter is required to be remanded back to the Additional
Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior to consider the application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, afresh after giving notice to the petitioner and
proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
5. Heard.
6. Admittedly, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been
preferred by respondent No.1 for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before
the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior on 28.07.2022 in Case
No.282/22-23/Appeal which was allowed vide the impugned order dated
22.08.2022 without giving any opportunity of hearing by issuing notice to the
petitioner, which is against the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
matters of Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Central
Excise, Gauhati & Others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519 and State Bank of India &
Others v. Rajesh Agarwal & Others reported in (2023) 6 SCC 1.
7. In Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Central
Excise, Gauhati (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 28 has held as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1984
3 WP-38472-2024
"Outlined the fundamental importance of providing an
opportunity for hearing before making any decision, and
characterized it as a basic requirement in any legal proceedings.
The Supreme Court further propounded that compliance with
principles of natural justice is an implied mandatory requirement,
and nonobservance of these principles can invalidate the exercise
of power. Relevant paragraphs have been extracted below:
28. It is on the aforesaid jurisprudential premise that the
fundamental principles of natural justice, including audi alteram
partem, have developed. It is for this reason that the courts have
consistently insisted that such procedural fairness has to be
adhered to before a decision is made and infraction thereof has led
to the quashing of decisions taken. In many statutes, provisions are
made ensuring that a notice is given to a person against whom an
order is likely to be passed before a decision is made, but there
may be instances where though an authority is vested with the
powers to pass such orders, which affect the liberty or property of
an individual but the statute may not contain a provision for prior
hearing. But what is important to be noted is that the applicability
of principles of natural justice is not dependent upon any statutory
provision. The principle has to be mandatorily applied irrespective
of the fact as to whether there is any such statutory provision or
not."
8. In State Bank of India & Others v. Rajesh Agarwal & Others (supra), the
Hon'ble Apex Court in para 36 has held as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1984
4 WP-38472-2024
"36. We need to bear in mind that the principles of natural
justice are not mere legal formalities. They constitute substantive
obligations that need to be followed by decision making and
adjudicating authorities. The principles of natural justice act as a
guarantee against arbitrary action, both in terms of procedure and
substance, by judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative
authorities. Two fundamental principles of natural justice are
entrenched in Indian jurisprudence: (i) nemo judex in causa sua,
which means that no person should be a judge in their own cause;
and (ii) audi alteram partem, which means that a person affected
by administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial action must be heard
before a decision is taken. The courts generally favor interpretation
of a statutory provision consistent with the principles of natural
justice because it is presumed that the statutory authorities do not
intend to contravene fundamental rights. Application of the said
principles depends on the facts and circumstances of the case,
express language and basic scheme of the statute under which the
administrative power is exercised, the nature and purpose for
which the power is conferred, and the final effect of the exercise of
that power."
9. Following the above judgments, since the principles of natural justice had
not been followed by the Additional Commissioner while passing the impugned
order herein, grave prejudice could be said to have been caused to the parties
concerned. In absence of a notice of any kind and a reasonable opportunity, the
order passed becomes wholly vitiated, as it is well established principle of law that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1984
5 WP-38472-2024
while interpreting a provision of law in passing the orders, the Court must give
purposive interpretation and any interpretation which leads to absurdity should be
avoided.
10. In view of the above and in my considered opinion the impugned order
dated 22.08.2022 passed by the Commissioner, Gwalior is hereby set aside and the
matter is remanded back to the learned Commissioner, Gwalior Division to
consider the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by respondent
No.1 afresh after giving notice to the petitioner and parties interested and proper
opportunity of hearing to them and thereafter, pass the order in accordance with
law.
11. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands allowed and disposed
of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
