IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5460 of 2009 SK.ABDUR RAHIM @ ABDUR RAHIM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 29.04.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. At the outset learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that at an earlier stage against the order for fresh counseling dated 25.7.2007 the petitioner had filed CWJC No. 11536 of 2007 which is pending before this Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that said writ application has now become infructuous in view of the present order dated 6.4.2009 directing termination of his services. He therefore submits that he shall be moving an appropriate application for withdrawal of CWJC No. 11536 of 2007 as infructuous in the light of subsequent developments as noticed hereinafter. The submission is that the order dated 6.4.2009 of the Appellate Authority, Katihar, on an application preferred by private respondent no. 9 removing the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Teacher and directing appointment of the applicant has been passed exparte without notice to the petitioner. Learned Counsel draws the attention of the Court to the specific pleading in Para 30 of the writ application in this regard. Learned Counsel for the State submits that it appears from the order that at some earlier stage before another authority the petitioner was heard. 2 If the petitioner is being non-suited by the order of the Appellate Authority dated 6.4.2009, what transpired earlier before another authority and what enquiry reports were taken into consideration, where the petitioner may have participated is hardly of relevance. If the petitioner is to be visited by adverse consequences by the order dated 6.4.2009 he was required to be heard. This Court is satisfied from the recitals in the impugned order itself that the petitioner does not appear to have been noticed and heard. If he was noticed or heard, there is no discussion in the impugned order that he refused to participate after notice, and alternatively consideration of his defence. Both the grounds lend credence to the submission of the petitioner that the order is exparte. Compliance with the principles of natural justice before visiting a person with adverse consequences is not like old wine stored in a bottle which matures with its age. If the authorities insist on passing orders in such manner without adhering to the principles laid down by Courts, this Court has no option but to set aside such illegal orders. This Court is conscious that the present order is being passed without issuing notice to respondent no. 10. Issuance of notice to respondent no. 10 would have necessitated stay of operation of the impugned order dated 6.4.2009. The writ petition would then have come up for admission years later as today this Court is hearing writ applications of 2001-2002. Matters such as the present are listed at the top under the new system of listing of fresh cases. It shall neither be in the interest 3 of the State of the private respondent to keep this matter pending before this Court allowing the petitioner to have advantage without even a final decision. Therefore, after setting aside the order this Court clarifies that it shall not result in the flow of any consequential benefits to the petitioner. The order has been set aside for the purpose of remand to the Appellate Authority and deciding the matter afresh after hearing all concerned. It is now for the petitioner how expeditiously he wants to move with the matter when the Appellate Authority is required to decide the matter within the statutory time fixed under Rule 2 of the notification creating the Authority to be computed from the date that the petitioner moves his application before the Appellate Authority along with a copy of the present order. If the petitioner does not move the Appellate Authority within the period of next three weeks along with a copy of the present order the writ application shall be deemed to be dismissed when the impugned order shall require no interference. The writ application stands disposed off. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)