AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sujoy Paul, J—This W.P. is heard with similar petitions i.e. W.P. No. 2800/2014, 2799/2014, 2796/2014, 2795/2014, 2702/2014, 2585/2014, 2520/2014, 6344/2014 and WP. No. 3125/2014. In view of commonality of issues involved, the parties are heard on the joint request and the matters are decided by this common order. The facts are taken from W.P. No. 2792/2014 wherein it is stated that the petitioner submitted an application before District Industries Centre pursuant to which a plot has been allotted to him on lease deed (Annexure P-4). The petitioner thereafter started developing the land but all of a sudden, the impugned order is passed whereby the said lease deed has been cancelled. Shri Sharma, submits that order is passed on the dictate of State Government and Commissioner Industries. Hence, no remedy is available to the petitioner. The bone of contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order is an adverse order and therefore could not have been passed without following the principles of natural justice.
Prayer is opposed by Shri Vishal Mishra, Dy. Advocate General by taking this Court to para 4 of the return in W.P. No. 2792/2014. It is contended that the petitioner has remedy of appeal. He submits that the petitioner be relegated to avail the said remedy.
I heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This is not dispute between the parties that the lease deed (Annexure P-4) was executed at relevant point of time. The said lease deed is cancelled without affording opportunity to the petitioner. The impugned order reads as under:-
A plain reading of this order shows that lease deed was executed and this fact is admitted in the impugned order. However, on the direction of State Government/Commissioner Industries, the allotment was found to be irregular. Thus, said decision was taken at apex level. The General Manager merely followed the direction issued by the Apex authority. Admittedly, the petitioner was not given any opportunity before issuance of order dated 07.04.2015.
The Supreme Court has emphasized the need of following the principles of natural justice in following words "The Apex Court in Km. Nelima Misra Vs. Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal and others, AIR 1990 SC 1402 : (1990) 2 JT 103 : (1990) 2 SCC 746 : (1990) 2 UJ 90 has held that any order which entails civil consequences should be passed only after following the principles of natural justice. The following quotes will establish the importance of following the principles of natural justice:-
"Principles of natural justice are to some minds burdensome but this price - a small price indeed-has to be paid if we desire a society governed by the rule of law."
"........even God himself did not pass [a] 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?...."
In Lloyd v. McMahon 17 (AC pp.702 H-703 B), it was held as under:-
"My Lords, the so-called rules of natural justice are not engraved on tablets of stone. To use the phrase which better expresses the underlying concept, what the requirements of fairness demand when any body, domestic, administrative or judicial, has to make a decision which will affect the rights of individuals depends on the character of the decision-making body, the kind of decision it has to make and the statutory or other framework in which it operates. In particular, it is well established that when a statute has conferred on any body the power to make decisions affecting individuals, the courts will not only require the procedure prescribed by the statute to be followed, but will readily imply so much and no more to be introduced by way of additional procedural safeguards as will ensure the attainment of fairness."
The Apex Court in Radhy Shyam v. State of U.P., reported in (2011) 5 SCC 55, held as under:-
"45. The amplitude, ambit and width of the rule of audi alteram partem was lucidly stated by the three-Judges Bench in Sayeedur Rehman Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, AIR 1973 SC 239 : (1973) 3 SCC 333 : (1973) 2 SCR 1043 : (1973) 1 SLJ 162 : (1973) 5 UJ 452 in the following words:
"11......This unwritten right of hearing is fundamental to a just decision by any authority which decides a controversial issue affecting the rights of the rival contestants. This right has its roots in the notion of fair procedure. It draws the attention of the party concerned to the imperative necessity of not overlooking the other side of the case before coming to its decision, for nothing is more likely to conduce to just and right decision than the practice of giving hearing to the affected parties."
In Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, AIR 1978 SC 851 : (1978) 1 SCC 405 : (1978) 2 SCR 272 , J. speaking for himself, Beg, C.J. And Bhagwati, J. highlighted the importance of the rule of hearing in the following words:
"43. Indeed, natural justice is a pervasive facet of secular law where a spiritual touch enlivens legislation, administration and adjudication, to make fairness a creed of life. It has many colours and shades, many forms and shapes and, save where valid law excludes it, applies when people are affected by acts of authority. It is the hone of healthy Government, recognised from earliest times and not a mystic testament of Judge-made law. Indeed, from the legendary days of Adamand of Kautilyas Arthashastrathe rule of law has had this stamp of natural justice which makes it social justice. We need not go into these deeps for the present except to indicate that the roots of natural justice and its foliage are noble and not new-fangled. Today its application must be sustained by current legislation, case law or other extant principle, not the hoary chords of legend and history. Our jurisprudence has sanctioned its prevalence even like the Anglo-American system.
The Court must make every effort to salvage this cardinal rule to the maximum extent permissible in a given case. It must not be forgotten that natural justice is pragmatically flexible and is amenable to capsulation under the compulsive pressure of circumstances. The audi alteram partem rule is not cast in a rigid mould and judicial decisions establish that it may suffer situational modifications. The core of it must, however, remain, namely, that the person affected must have a reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise."
Justice Krishna Iyer (as His Lordship then was) in The Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines and Another Vs. Ramjee, AIR 1977 SC 965 : (1977) 34 FLR 381 : (1977) 2 SCC 256 : (1977) 2 SCR 904 : (1977) 9 UJ 184 , while dealing with the principle of natural justice, characteristically stated as under:-
"It cannot be forgotten that natural justice is after all "no unruly horse, no lurking land mine''. Its unnatural expansion without reference to these realities can be ''exasperating''".
I am not inclined to relegate the petitioner to avail alternative remedy for the simple reason that the order is passed on the dictate and direction of the higher authority. If the petitioner is relegated to avail the said remedy, it will be a futile exercise. This is trite law that despite availability of alternative remedy, petition can be entertained when principles of natural justice are violated. (See Whirlpool) Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others, AIR 1999 SC 22 : (1998) 7 JT 243 : (1998) 5 SCALE 655 : (1998) 8 SCC 1 : (1998) 2 SCR 359 Supp : (1998) AIRSCW 3345 : (1998) 8 Supreme 176 .
Considering the aforesaid, in my view, the impugned order (Annexure P-1) entails civil consequences. The words "civil consequences" was defined by the Supreme Court as under:-
"66.......''Civil consequence'' undoubtedly cover infraction of not merely property of personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-primary damages. In its comprehensive connotation, everything that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts a civil consequence.........."
In view of aforesaid, it is clear that the impugned adverse order could not have been passed without following the principles of natural justice.
For this reason alone the petitioners deserve to succeed. Resultantly, the order dated 07.04.2014 is set-aside. Similar impugned orders in all WPs are set aside.
Liberty is reserved to the respondents to follow the principles of natural justice and proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.
The petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.