Abhimanyu Dass Jain (D) Thr. Lrs.&Anr vs Board Of Revenue, & Ors
- CitationAIRONLINE 2009 SC 149
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an administrative authority passes an order cancelling or adversely affecting the rights of a person, such order cannot be passed ex parte merely because the person did not appear on a particular date, if that person had applied two days prior seeking an opportunity of hearing; the authority must consider such application and afford the applicant a reasonable opportunity to be heard before disposing of the matter, and if such opportunity is not given, the order is vitiated by breach of the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness and must be set aside.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1595 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.12001 of 2007)
Abhimanyu Dass Jain (D) Thr. L.Rs. & Anr. ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Board of Revenue & Ors. ...Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
In spite of service of notice, nobody has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents to contest the prayer made in this appeal.
By order dated 14th april, 1982, the Additional Collector (Finance), Meerut, cancelled the allotment of plot made in favour of the appellants. While doing so, the Additional Collector observed that the allottee has not appeared despite notice. It is borne out from the records that two days before the passing of the order dated 14th April, 1982, the appellants had made an application for being afforded an opportunity of hearing. However, that application was not considered and the order of cancellation was passed. When the appellants applied for setting aside the ex-parte order, their application was dismissed by the Additional Collector (Finance), Meerut, vide his order dated 25th June, 1982. Thereafter, the appellants filed revisions before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, and the ...2/-
-2- Board of Revenue for setting aside order dated 14th April, 1982, but could not succeed in persuading the concerned authorities to entertain their plea. The writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging orders passed by the Additional Collector (Finance), Additional Commissioner, Meerut, and the Board of Revenue were dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the records, we are of the view that the Additional Collector (Finance), Meerut, was not justified in disposing of the petition against the order cancelling the allotment by an ex-parte order. The Additional Commissioner, Meerut, the Board of Revenue and the High Court also committed grave error by confirming order of cancellation passed by the Additional Collector. Hence, the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Additional Collector (Finance), Meerut, who shall decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. The matter shall be decided expeditiously.
......................J. [B.N. AGRAWAL]
......................J. [G.S. SINGHVI] New Delhi, March 06, 2009.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free