IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1361 of 2010 BAIDYA NATH JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 03 05.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on his representation for grant of A.C.P. by taking into consideration the work period in the work charge establishment, the respondents after due deliberation and application of mind as evident from order dated 22.5.2009, 17.8.2009 ultimately granted the benefit by a reasoned order dated 21.10.2009 with reference to the Finance Department notification no. 1802 (F2) dated 23.3.2006. This has been arbitrarily cancelled by the impugned order dated 6.1.2010 in violation of the principles of natural justice specifically asserted in paragraph-17 of the writ application. Learned counsel for the State is unable to dispute the specific assertion of denial of principles of natural justice from the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the State is further unable to demonstrate the reasons. The reliance on Annexure-D to the counter affidavit, a Government order dated 5.1.2010 to support the impugned order by a process of reasoning when the orders itself is not explicit does not satisfy the Court. It is trite law, long settled, that any order having adverse consequences is required to be in accordance with principles of natural justice. The present 2 is purely an administrative issue. Once an order has been passed after due opportunity to the aggrieved, the question of this Court examining the same under powers of judicial review arises. If the order on the face of it is contrary to the principles of natural justice, this Court has little option but to set aside such an order as a nullity. It is indeed unfortunate that senior Government functionaries insist on passing orders contrary to the law, notwithstanding the fact that not only this Court but even the Apex Court has repeatedly emphasized that no order prejudicial to a person can be passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, except perhaps in cases of fraud. If the respondents concerned had been a little more careful, it would have prevented one avoidable litigation coming to the Court. It is possible that if the petitioner was heard and a reasoned order had been passed, the petitioner may have been appropriately advised that it may not be perhaps be fruitful for him to approach this Court. The order dated 6.1.2010 is set aside without prejudice rights of the respondents. The application is allowed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)