The Special Deputy Collector vs Ravula Damodar Reddy Died Per Lrs ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 332 Tel

                     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
                   FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF
                                 ANDHRA PRADESH

                          MAIN CASE NO: L.A.A.S.No.485 of 2012
                                    PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.      DATE        ORDER                                                                OFFICE
No.                                                                                        NOTE

2.    29.10.2014     GC,J & MSKJ,J
                                                                                          Transferred
                                       L.A.A.S.M.P.No.823 of 2014                         to
                                                                                          I-Orders
                                                                                          Folder
                     This application is filed to bring on record the legal
                                                                                          before
                     representatives of the deceased sole respondent.                     corrections,

if any.

In view of the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, L.A.A.S.M.P. is ordered.

________________________ 29.10.2014 GHN It is a settled and well established elementary and cardinal principles of law that any action by the authorities which has penal and civil consequences must be preceded by prior notice and the opportunity to the persons likely to be affected by such action. Unless such pre-decisional mandatory requirements are adhered to the actions having civil consequences cannot be sustained. Non compliance of principles of natural justice, which is obviously an off-shoot of the underlying principle of Article 14 of the constitution, which strikes at the arbitrariness would render the impugned order unsustainable, null and void. This court is of the opinion that before passing the impugned order, the responde4nts ought to have issued notice and ought to have afforded an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, so that the authorities are in a position to arrive at a reasonable conclusion having regard to the issue. In the instant case, the respondents 1 and 2, simply basing on the request made by the State Government, resorted to the impugned action. Another significant aspect which requires mention at this juncture is that there is no allegation of violation of any conditions of agreement. In the case of Indu Bushan Dwivide vs. state of Jharkhan and another ... 2010 (11) SCC 278 the hOn'ble Supreme Court while referring to a judgment reported in AIR 1964 SC 506 and AIR 1963 SC 1612 held as under

The proposition laid down in the above noted judgments represents one of the basic cannons of justice that no one can be condemned unheard and no order prejudicially affecting any person can be passed by a public authority without affording him the reasonable opportunity to defend himself or represent his cause.

As a general rule, the authority entrusted with the task of deciding the lis between the parties or empowered to make an order which prejudicially affects the rights of any individual or visits him with civil consequences, is duty bound to act in consonance with the basic rules of natural justice including the one that likely sought to be used against the person concerned must be disclosed to him and he should be given an opportunity to explain his position. This unwritten right of hearing is fundamental to a just decision which forms an integral part of concept of rule of law. This right has its rules in the notion of fair procedure. It draws attention of the authorities concerned to the imperative necessity of not overlooking the cause which may be shown by the otherside before coming to its conclusion.

In the case of ITC ltd. V.s state of uttar Pradesh and others 2011 (7) SCC 493 at paragraph....the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

In the case reported in 2013 (3) ALD 413, this Court held that no person shall be visited with a non-speaking order and without providing an opportunity to defend his case and that any order affecting the interest of a person shall comply with principles of natural justice and that one of the facets of principles of natural justice is to record valid reasons supporting the conclusion and giving reasons is a sine-qua-non for exercise of quasi-judicial power and that if reasons are not assigned, the order however laudable in its result cannot be commended.

The aspect of affording opportunity to the affected individuals would assist the decision making authority to arrive at a reasonable and valid conclusion. In the instant case, at the first instance the DPO issued an order, demanding an amount of Rs.......towards penalty. The case of the petiton is that the said order was passed without prior notice or opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The counter filed on .......... Is absolutely silent as to whether any such show cause notice or opportunity of being heard was provided to the petitioner. Subsequently, obviously recognizing the lack of jurisdiction and power, the order dated ... was suo motu withdrawn by the DPO. Subsequently, the ADMG passed an order once again demanding the amount without being preceded by any show cause notice or opportunity to the petitioner. The said action, in the considered opinion of this Court is in total violation of principles of natural justice in view of the ratio laid down in the above referred judgments.