SCA/9181/2008 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9181 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= SHRI SABARKANTHA JILLA SAMAJIK PRAGATI MANDAL - Petitioner(s) Versus DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS ALPA J DAVE for Petitioner(s) : 1,MR KI KAZI for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR VINAY S PANDYA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date : 13/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr. Vinay S Pandya learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for the respondent SCA/9181/2008 2/7 JUDGMENT Nos. 1 and 2. 2. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard today. 3. The short fact of the case appears to be that inspection was carried out in the Ashramshala run by the petitioner, and on the basis of which the proceedings where initiated for cancellation of the recognization of the Ashramshala. As per the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing was given by submitting explanation to the inspection report dated 16.3.2007, when the hearing was fixed on 22.3.2007. Whereas, the case of the respondent authority is that hearing was fixed on 22.3.2007, on the basis of the inspection report dated 16.3.2007. It appears that thereafter, on 19.4.2008, the order at annexure-A has been passed by the State Government, whereby the recognization of Ashramshala is cancelled. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached to this Court by the present petition. 4. It does appear from the record that petitioner SCA/9181/2008 3/7 JUDGMENT had submitted reply to the notice. However, the perusal of the order shows that there is reference to the inspection report dated 16.3.2007 by Ashramshala officer of Khedbrahma, in which, certain irregularities are found in the petitioner's Ashramshala. In the very order it has been further mentioned that since irregularities were found in the inspection report dated 16.3.2007, notice was issued for fixing the hearing on 22.3.2007. The petitioner has produce the said notice at page 32 of the petition at annexure-G, which is undated, but the endorsement of the stamp shows that it is 8.3.2007. Even if the reply of the respondent authority is considered, and the office copy of such intimation if considered, produced at page 59, the same is prepared on 2.3.2007, and is dated 5.3.2007. Under these circumstances, even if the case of the respondent authority is considered, the intimation, for fixing hearing on 22.3.2007, is given on 5.3.2007. Hence, on 5.3.2007, when the intimation was given, there could not be any report of the inspection dated SCA/9181/2008 4/7 JUDGMENT 16.3.2007, because such report was non existent on 5.3.2007. Under these circumstances, the recitals in the order that on the basis of the irregularities found at the inspection dated 16.3.2007 hearing was fixed on 22.3.2007, is not on a correct factual premise. It also cannot be accepted logically, nor as per the chronology. The intimation for fixing hearing on the basis of such inspection report will be later to 16.3.2007, and it could not be earlier than 16.3.2007, which in the present is, in any case 5.3.2007, even as per the stand of the State Government. The aforesaid shows that after intimation dated 5.3.2007, the inspection has been taken place on 16.3.2007, for which there is no reference whatsoever in the notice for fixing hearing on 22.3.2007. Consequence would be that the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to make representation in respect to the inspection report dated 16.3.2007, and it would result into breach of principles of natural justice. It is hardly required to be stated that if the recognization of the SCA/9181/2008 5/7 JUDGMENT Ashramshala is to be cancelled, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. If the authority was to act upon the inspection report dated 16.3.2007, it was required for the authority, to bring it to the notice of the petitioner about alleged irregularities. The say of the petitioner could be considered and thereafter, only the appropriate orders could be passed. As it has not happened in the present case, the order could be said as in breach of principles of natural justice. 5. It does appear further that there were earlier inspection in the receipt to the Ashramshala of the petitioner, namely of on 20.2.2006 and 19.9.2006, hearing was also fixed before the Commissioner and thereafter, explanation was given by the petitioner, and the proposal was forwarded by the Commissioner for cancellation of the recognization. 6. Under these circumstances, it appears that it would be just and proper to direct the State Government to take a fresh decision after supplying copy of the inspection dated 16.3.2007 SCA/9181/2008 6/7 JUDGMENT to the petitioner and the petitioner can be given opportunity to meet with such irregularities and at that stage the petitioner may also bring on record the improvement if any, in the Ashramshala later to the inspection, which may also be considered by the State Government while passing final order. 7. In view of the above, I find that the following directions shall meet with the ends of justice: A) The State Government shall supply copy of the inspection report dated 16.3.2007, undertaken by Ashramshala officer, Khedbrahma, and the petitioner shall be at the liberty to submit reply within a period of two weeks from the receipt of the inspection report dated 16.3.2007. B) Thereafter, opportunity of hearing shall be given by the State Government and a fresh order shall be passed by the State Government in accordance with law. SCA/9181/2008 7/7 JUDGMENT C) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the State Government preferably within a period of three months from the receipt of the order of this Court. D) After a fresh order is passed by the State Government in accordance with law, the present order at annexure-A, shall not survive and the rights of the parties shall stand governed by a fresh order, which may be passed by the State Government, subject to the right of the petitioner to challenge the said order, in case aggrieved by such order. 8. The petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted. (JAYANT PATEL, J.) Suresh*