Allahabad High Court
Sanyogita Rai vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 12 September, 2019
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26587 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sanyogita Rai Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Singh,Ajay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vineet Sankalp Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vineet Sankalp, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nagar Nigam, learned standing counsel for the State and perused the record.
In compliance of our earlier order dated 20.08.2019 in which certain directions and observations were made, Ashutosh Kumar Dwivedi, the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Varanasi has filed his personal affidavit before this Court which is taken on record. In paragraph no.3 of the personal affidavit, the Municipal Commissioner has admitted that after going through the record he has found that serious procedural error has been committed in passing the order dated 31.07.2019 and accordingly vide order dated 09.09.2019 which has been filed as Annexure No.1 to the personal affidavit, the order dated 31.07.2019 has been recalled and 23.09.2019 has been fixed giving full opportunity of hearing to all the parties. The paragraph no.3 of the personal affidavit filed by Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Varanasi runs as under:-
"That in compliance of order dated 20.08.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court, the Zonal Officer, Kotwali Zone who passed the order dated 31.07.2019 has gone through the matter in dispute and re-examined the original record and thereafter, it was found that order impugned was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the tenant(s) and thus, the order dated 31.07.2019 has been recalled on 09.09.2019 and 23.09.2019 has been fixed as next date of hearing after serving unconditional apology and praying for calling upon further report of spot inspection by concerned Engineer for finding actual technicalities regarding condition of the building in question."
In view of the above and the fact that the order dated 31.07.2019 has been recalled, the relief claimed by the petitioner in the present writ petition now cannot be granted and it is left open for the petitioner to pursue a remedy, if any, before the competent authority.
We may further observe that whenever authorities are obliged discharge their duties which are statutory in nature, they are required to follow the procedure that makes the action a result of due process of law. We make it clear that even in the process of administrative decision making, the minimum requirement of principles of natural justice has to be complied with as no body can be condemned unheard. It is well settled rule in the exercise of administrative power that principle of "audi alteram partem" is not violated at any level.
Accordingly we direct that in the present case the authority concerned shall not pass any further order in hot haste and will consider the entire matter objectively and after recording full satisfaction, he shall proceed to pass order in the matter and of course after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties. Needless to add order will be a reasoned one.
However, before parting with the case we take exception to such conduct of the administrative authority/competent authority that owes accountability towards public at large, in taking the matter involving serious civil dispute, so casually. The authorities are accordingly cautioned to be careful while exercising administrative power.
Let the copy of this order be sent to respondent no.1 and District Magistrate, Varanasi for follow-up action.
Writ petition thus stands disposed off and consigned to record.
(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 12.9.2019
Gaurav