$nmk‘ @anw 0 g‘ <[6@/W; a) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION C NoglggOF 2011 PETITIONER Bhojraj Tilakwar Slo Rameshwar Tilakwar, aged about 3O years, Rio Village Khairbana, Tahsil—Bodla, District Kabirdham (CG) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Forest Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (CG) RESPONDENTS 2. Conservator of Forest, Durg, Circle, Durg, District Durg (CG) 3. Prescribed Officer and Superintendent, Bhoramdev Sanctuary, Kawardha, District Kawardha (CG) /4. The Sub Divisionai Officer, Kawardha, District Kawardha (CG) RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1 W HIGH COURT OF CHHATT!SGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO.5233 OF 2011 (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 2”a day of November, 201 1) Heard Iearned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 19—7—2011 (Annexure — P/1) passed by the First Appellate Authority-cum—Conservator of Forest, Durg Circle, Durg. Learned counsel appearing‘ for the petitioner submits that the Prescribed Authority—cum—Superintendent, Bhoramdev Wildlife Sanctuary, Kawardha, by order dated 19-7-2011 directed to release the seized vehicle bearing registration No.CG—09—B—O143. Thereafter, on the same day, the appellate authority without affordingan opportunity of hearing quashed the order passed by the Prescribed Authority in an illegal and arbitrary manner. Learned counsel further submits that in View of the well settled principles of law if an appellate authority takes a divergent view’proper opportunity of hearing has ,to be afforded to the petitioner in whose favour, the order has been passed by the authority below. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that fairly submits that before passing the impugned order no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. 5. Be that as it may, it iswell settled principle of law that if any order I visits with civil consequences, the same is vitiated, if passed without l - x PETITIONER Bhojraj Tilakwar Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others 7 A.l.R 5 . ‘ v/«Px \‘\‘,\ w affording an opportunity of hearing to the empioyee(s). (See Shrawan Kumar Jha and others v. State of Bihar and others7, D.KiYadav vi J.M.A. Industries Ltd. & Others2, Basudeo Tiwari v. Sido Kanhu University & Othersa, Canara Bank & Others. v. Debasis Das & Others", Vivekanand Sethi v. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltdi & Others5, Mohd. Sartaj & another vi State of UP. & Others? Inderpreet Sing/7 Kan/on & others Vs. State of Punjab & others7, Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India & Otherse, State of Manipur & Others v. Y.Token Singh & Others9, Jaswant Singh Pratap Singh Jadeja v. Rajkot Municipal Corporation & another“), Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan v. Mehbub A/am Lashkar“, State of Punjab & Others v. Constable Avtar Singh (Dead) Through LRs.12). This Court, in the matter of Ku. Punam & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others”, wherein an identical issue came up for consideration, observed as under: “20. it is weii settled that the purpose of rules of natural justice is not to administer justice alone but to prevent miscarriage of justice and the principles of natural justice are applicable to the administrative order, if such order affects right of a citizen, 21. Applying well settled principle of law to the facts of the cases, there is‘ a common thread that the principle of natural justice is not unruly horse. The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with, having regard to the facts situation obtained therein. Thus, the principles of natural justice may not be required to be followed in the cases, where the facts are admitted. Secondly, that it is CGLJ 366 r l l L/Tx ‘AIR (1991) sc 310 , 2 (1993) 3 scc 259 3 AIR. (1998) so. 3261 . 4 (2003) 4 soc 557 If I 5 6 (2005) 5 soc 337 (2006) 2 sco 315 . 2006 so. 2571 8 (2007) 4 soc 54 9 (2007) 5 soc 65 10 (2007) 1p soc 71 11 (2008) 2Jsoc 479 12 (2008) 7"soo\405 13’ (2008) 2 ' .: practically \ impossible or highly improbable to afford an opportunity of hearing, in the event, of quashing of selection on account of irregularity committed on mass scale, or en- masse cancellation. Thirdly, no useful purpose would be served by affording an opportunity of hearing.” 7. Subsequently, the ratio laid down by this Court in Ku. Punam (supra) has been referred approvingly in Mrityunjay Shukla & Others v. Municipal Corporation Raipur & Others”. 8. In View of foregoing, the order dated 19-7—2011 (AnnexUre - P/1) is ‘quashed and the matter is remitted back to the First Appellate Authority—cum—Conservator of Forest, Durg Circle, Durg to consider the case of the petitioner afresh after following the basic principles of natural justice and pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law and on its own merits. 9. As an upshot, the petition is allowed to the extent indicated above No order asto costs. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Gowri 1 44 (2009) 1 cord 975 , \