iiasii- p^'l ^ \ IN THE COURT-OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITION (C).NO. OF 2010 >0^^^p^ ^' "y\,-'" cy [ ^" / Rishab Rice Processing, Shyam Tarai, Bastar Road, Dhamtari (CG), through its Proprietor, Smt. Preeti Jain, W/o Shri Vikas Jain, aged about 28 years, R/o Itwari Bazar, Dhamtari, Tahsil & District Dhamtari (CG). gf^»»^ ^ >"<''. r/^ ^.\% ^ {S&. : 1\ r^x. v. r Versus - ^ ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Food & Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, D.K.S. Building, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. / 2. Collector (P'ood Branch), Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG). ^ 3. Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation, through its Managing Director, Raipur (CG). .-4. Food Corporation -of India,. through District .Manager, Raipur (CG). ,5. Chhaftisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, through its Managing Director, Raipur (CG). WIIT^ETSTSON UNDER ARTSCLE 226 OF THE COHSTITUTION OF 'T I. '1@ J '\^^ y :0< HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 N0. 1806 of 2010 Petitipner Versus Respondents Rishab Rice Processing State of Chhattisgarh & others -6 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri B.D. Gucu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri, P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent N0.1&2. .. Shri N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate with Shri Shailendra Shiukla, AdvQcate for the respondent No. 3. None for the respondent No. 4 & 5. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 18th DayofJune, 2010) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 12/03/2010 has been passed, without affording an opportunity of hearing either before the enquiry committee or before passing the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be quashed on the ground that the basic principles of natural justice, which amounts to viotation of provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, has not been followed. The facts, in nutshell, which are relevant for disposal of this case, are that the Collector, Dhamtari (Respondent No. 2) by order dated 05/02/2010 granted permission to the petitioner for custom milling of rice during the season 2009-10. Thereafter, without assigning any reason, the order has been cancelledby the impugned order dated 12/03/2010. 1. I 1-11 / ^ On the other hand, Shri P.K. Bhaduri, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 & 2, submits that in case on hand, it is not necessary to afford an ppportunity of hearing, as the impugned order has been passed on holding a proper enquiry. It has been found by the enquiry committee that the petitioner has submitted forged FDR bearing Nos. 867978 & 867998 and accordingly impugned order was passed and FIR has been lodged againstthe petitioner. Dr. N. K. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No. 3 supports the stibmission made by the respondent No. 1 & 2. 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. It is evident that the basic pillar of the prihciples of audi alteram partem i.e. no one should be condemned unheard, has not been followed in this case. In Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India & Others1, the Supreme Court observed as under: "26. This/brings to us the question as to whetherthe principles of natural justice were required to be complied with. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the audi alteram partem is one of the basic pillars of naturaljustice which means no one should be condemned unheard. However, whenever possible the phnciple of natural justice should be followed. Ordinarilyin a case ofthis nature the same should be complied with. Visitor may in a given situation issue notice to the employee who would be effected by the ultimate order that may be passed. He may not be given an oral hearing, but may be allowedto make a representation in writing. It is not the case of the respondent No. 1 & 2 that an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Even, it has been found that the FIR was lodged then.also a show cause notice has to be given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order and action taken against the petitioner. 1 (2007) 4 SCC 54 h. ^'•SIM&_ B -,^^ ^ 8. 9. 10. In view of foregoing, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 12/03/2010 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to take appropriate steps against the petitioner, if so advised, in accordance with law, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge