IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 48 of 2006 Principal, Nehru Institute of Mountaineering, Uttarakashi and others . .……… Appellants Versus Bijendra Singh Sajwan ……… Respondent Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, A.C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. We have heard Shri V.B.S. Negi, the learned counsel assisted by Shri Pradeep Joshi, the learned counsel for the appellants and Shri U.K. Uniyal, the learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Sandeep Kothari, the learned counsel for the respondent. The present special appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 31st March, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition and quashing the order of termination directing reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The appellants have filed the present appeal on several grounds and, one of them is, that no opportunity of hearing was provided to them before passing the impugned order. It transpires that the writ petition was filed in the year 1993 by the petitioner against the order of termination before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Upon the creation of the State of Uttaranchal (now called Uttarakhand) on 9th November, 2000 and, pursuant to Section 35 of the State Reorganization Act, 2000, the writ petition which was pending before the High Court at Allahabad was consequently transferred to this High Court at Nainital where it was re-numbered as WP No.271 of 2002 (S/S). Pursuant to our order dated 4th November, 2009, the Registry has 2 submitted a report stating that, upon the transfer of the petition to this Court, no notices were issued to the respondents for their appearance. This fact is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner who, however, submits that the respondents being an instrumentality of the State, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, was duly represented by the Standing Counsel as is clear from the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel for the opposite party further submitted that even otherwise, the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been passed on merit after considering the averments made in the counter affidavit of the appellants and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in remitting the matter again to the learned Single Judge on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. We have given our considerable thought in this matter and we are of the opinion that this special appeal is liable to be allowed on the short ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. Upon the transfer of the petition from the Allahabad High Court to this Court, pursuant to Section 35 of the State Reorganization Act, it was implicit as well as mandatory for the Court to have issued notices to the private respondents, namely, the appellants who is the Principal, Nehru Institute of Mountaineering, Uttarkashi, to Sri A.K. Bhattacharya and to Shri M.P. Yadav, Enquiry Officer & Vice Principal of the institute. The record indicates that a counter affidavit was filed by the said three respondents through a private counsel and that they were not being represented by the Standing Counsel before the Allahabad High Court. The said respondents, namely, the appellants before us is a society registered under the Society Registration Act and, therefore, to that extent an autonomous 3 body. There is nothing to indicate that the Standing Counsel was authorized to appear on behalf of the appellants. The Court further finds from the report of the Registry that admittedly no notice was issued to the appellants to appear before the Court after the matter was transferred to this Court. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion that the writ petition was decided by the learned Single Judge without hearing the appellants. The impugned judgment, consequently suffers from the vice of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is imperative that the respondents in the writ petition should have been heard before deciding the writ petition. In the light of the aforesaid and on this short ground, the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and is set aside. The special appeal is allowed. The matter is being remitted again to the learned Single Judge to decide the matter afresh after hearing all the parties. We direct the Registry to list this matter before the appropriate Bench within two weeks from today and we hope that the learned Single Judge will decide the matter expeditiously. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, A.C.J.) 05.11.2009 Shiv/Bhaskar