IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7547 of 2010 Maharshi Kumar Verma, son of late Ramjee Bhaket, resident of Mohalla Gandhinagar, Gaya Road, Par-Nawadah, Police Station Nawadah, District Nawadah at present (Mantri) Gramodyog Ashram, Kenasarai Devi Asthan, Gaya Road, Nawadah…………………………………………....Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through Chief Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India. 2. The Chief Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi. 3. The Project Director, National Child Labour Project Committee, Nawadah. 4. The State of Bihar (Through the District Magistrate-cum-President National Child Labour Project Committee, Nawadah) 5. The Labour Pravartan Officer-cum-Regional Officer, National Child Labour Project Committee, Nawadah…………………………………………Respondents ----------- 2 09.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. It appears that two schools, namely, Child Labour School, Shobhapur, Nawada and Child Labour School, Muslim Road, Nawadah, which were placed under the control and management of Gramodyog Ashram, Kenasarai Devi Asthan, Gaya Road, Nawadah of which petitioner claims to be working as Secretary, were inspected twice, once by the Labour Enforcement Officer and thereafter by the Project Director, National Child Labour Planning 2 Committee. They found certain irregularities and shortfalls in the functioning of schools for which petitioner was noticed. Petitioner filed his reply to the same by Annexure-3. Thereafter, it appears that, along with the report and comments of the officers and reply of the petitioner, the matter was placed before the District Magistrate, who passed the impugned order dated 27.04.2009, as contained in Annexure-4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the District Magistrate was the authority empowered to cancel the contract of the petitioner, he should have noticed the petitioner and should have heard him before passing the impugned order. It was not sufficient for him to merely look to the records and reply of the petitioner and pass orders only on that basis. A counter affidavit has been filed in which it is stated that the Project Director had noticed the petitioner to which he had replied and thereafter the 3 matter was placed before the District Magistrate. But there is no statement in the counter affidavit to show that the District Magistrate had also issued notice to the petitioner before taking back the schools from the control & management of petitioner’s Institution by the impugned order. A decision-making authority is required to comply with the Principles of Natural Justice before taking any adverse decision against the party going to be affected. Since the District Magistrate had to apply his mind and was the authority to pass final orders, it was appropriate for him to notice the petitioner and hear him before passing the impugned order. This has not been done. However, instead of quashing the impugned order, this Court directs that the impugned order shall be treated as show cause by the petitioner and he shall file reply to the same explaining all the lapses and shortfalls, as noticed in the order, to the District Magistrate, within four weeks from today, with a request him 4 to grant him personal hearing, if necessary. Upon receipt of such show cause reply from the petitioner, the District Magistrate shall consider the matter and, if necessary, shall fix up a date for his appearance and thereafter shall pass fresh orders in accordance with law preferably within two months from the date of receipt of show cause reply from the petitioner. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)