WA 45/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.UPADHYAY Ranjan Gogoi, CJ (Acting) Heard Mr HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the appellant ; Mr B Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Health appearing for the official respon dents and Mr B Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No.6. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed at the outset: The appellant/ writ petitioner contested the elections held to t he Zilla Parishads in the State of Assam in the year 2007 from the No.9 Aeirkata Zilla Parishad. She was declared successful in the said election. The appellant / writ petitioner while submitting her nomination claimed to be more than 21 yea rs of age by stating her date of birth to be 1.9.85 on the strength of a birth c ertificate issued by the in-Charge of the South Salmara PHC dated 10.12.2007. 3. The election of the appellant/ writ petitioner was challenged be fore the Election Tribunal by the 6th respondent contending, inter alia, that t he appellant/ writ petitioner was below 21 years of age and that the admit card issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam showed her date of birth to be 30.9.87. It was also contended by the respondent No.6 in the election petition that the appellant/ writ petitioner while submitting application for a party tic ket had stated her date of birth to be 30.9.87. 5. While the election petition was pending before the learned Elect ion Tribunal, the respondent No.6 submitted an application under the Right to In formation Act seeking detailed information with regard to the facts and circumst ances surrounding the birth certificate dated 10.12.2007 issued by the in-Charge of the South Salmara PHC. After exchange of several correspondences in the matt er the Joint Director of Health Services by communication dated 17.3.2008 inform ed the 6th respondent that the original birth certificate of the appellant/ writ petitioner was destroyed in the floods that had occurred in the year 2002. By t he said communication the 6th respondent was further informed that the jurisdict ional Gaon Panchayat had issued a certificate dated 14.9.85 showing the date of birth of the appellant/ writ petitioner as 1.9.85. As there were certain discrep ancies in the names appearing in the said certificate in respect of the appellan t/ writ petitioner, her mother and her father, an affidavit dated 10.12.2007 was submitted by the appellant/ writ petitioner claiming that the names shown in th e certificate of the Gaon Panchayat were not those of her and her parents. On th e basis thereof, a second/ duplicate birth certificate was issued by the in-Char ge of the South Salmara PHC on 10.12.2007. By the communication dated 17.3.2008, after informing the 6th respondents of the aforesaid facts, the Joint Director of Health Services under the head Comments had mentioned that the validity of the birth certificate dated 10.12.2007 granted to the appellant/ writ petitioner is in doubt and the same cannot be accepted as a valid document. Thereafter, on 19.3.2008, the Joint Director instructed the Senior Medical & Health Officer an d in-Charge of South Salmara PHC to cancel the birth certificate issued to the a ppellant on 10.12.2007 which was so done on 25.3.2008. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action and orders, the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted by the appellant/ writ petiti oner. The learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition took the view that thou gh the cancellation of the birth certificate of the appellant was made without a ny notice or opportunity to her, the said action would not be in violation of th e principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, according to the learned Single Ju dge, whatever version that could be offered by the appellant/ writ petitioner wa s already on record of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge also noticed discrepancies in the certificate dated 14.9.85 issued by the Gaon Panchayat and the birth certificate dated 10.12.2007 issued by the in-Charge of South Salmara PHC and took the view that merely on the basis of an affidavit of the petitioner claiming the persons under the two sets of names to be the same, the concerned authority ought not to have issued the birth certificate dated 10.12.2007. On th e aforesaid principal findings, the learned Single Judge thought it proper to di smiss the writ petition. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. 7. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the cancellation of the birth certificate of the appellant was made without giving any opportunit y or notice to her. The requirement of hearing a person aggrieved does not depen d on the possible version that such person may offer before the concerned author ity. That is why the Courts have repeatedly emphasized that no prejudicial actio n adverse to a party should be approved by the Court unless the affected party h as been given a reasonable opportunity. The aforesaid doctrine which is a princi pal feature of the principles of natural justice undoubtedly has been relaxed in certain judicial decisions. However, such relaxation has been made by the Court in a situation where the basic facts are admitted or where the same speak for t hemselves. Whether the present case would be covered by the aforesaid exception is the moot question. 8. That the original birth certificate of the petitioner was destro yed by the floods in the year 2002 is a fact that could have been demonstrated b y the appellant/ writ petitioner by adducing relevant evidence in this regard. T hat the names of the petitioner and her parents were recorded in a different man ner in the certificate of the Gaon Panchayat dated 14.9.85 and that the persons mentioned in the said certificate are the petitioner and her parents could have been attempted to be proved by the petitioner by leading oral and documental ev idence. If the appellant/ writ petitioner succeeds in establishing the said fac ts the birth certificate dated 10.12.2007, issued on the basis of the affidavit of the appellant/ writ petitioner of the same date, may prove to be authentic. A ll these questions could have been resolved only if the appellant/ writ petition er had been given an opportunity of hearing which was, admittedly, not done. In such a situation, we are unable to subscribe to the view recorded by the learned Single Judge that the denial of opportunity to the appellant/ writ petitioner i n the present case does not violate the principles of natural justice. 9. There is another significant feature of the case. The election p etition filed by the 6th respondent was pending before the Election Tribunal whe re the issue with regard to the age of the appellant/ writ petitioner was pendin g consideration. When the said issue was pending before the learned Tribunal and on the said issue parties could have led evidence in support of their respectiv e cases, the effect of the order of cancellation made in the present case is tha t the proceedings in the election petition stood pre-judged and pre-decided. Suc h a course of action certainly cannot be permitted, particularly when, the facts surrounding the cancellation had been noticed in a proceeding under the Right t o Information Act in which the primary duty of the authority under the Act is to part with the information without expressing any opinion on the correctness of a Government decision much less to take any prejudicial action against any party in respect of whom information may be sought. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that this writ appeal should be allowed. We, accordingly, do so and set aside the order dated 28.1.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 1469/2008.