é) @ )(VG\N IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO. @FM OF 2010 SE $2LE Em: i% OTHER MATTER WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONsTTTUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION AND/OR A SUITABLE DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER PETITIONER Lalchand Gupta (Ex-army man) S/o Late Shri Gangaram Halwai, aged about 60 years, R/o Gaddi Chowk, Palace Road Raigarh, Tahsil and District - Raigarh, (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Health and family wetfare IQ . Department DKS Bhawan Mantratay, ‘ Ralpur(CG) The CIVII Surgeon cum Chief Hospital Superintendent, District Hospital Raigarh, District — Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 3. The Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 4. The Member Secretary, Jeevan Deep Samiti, District Hospital, Raigarh, District— Raigarh (C.G,.) Riki , I i L3 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 6271 0f201Q PETITIONER Lalchand Gupta. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent NO 1 to 3. ORDER (ORAL) ‘ ' 15" day of November, 2010) (Passed on Challenge in this petition is to the orders dated 15.09.2010 (Annexure P/l), 22102010 (Annexure P/2) and 30.10.2006 (Annexure P/3) wherein a penalty ‘of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed on the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was using domestic gas cylinders for the purpose of commercial canteen. Shri Dubey, learned counsel appearing. for the petitioner submits that the Collector conducted inspection on 30.10.2006 (Annexure P/5) and on the basis of the inspection, the respondent No. 4 imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the same date. Thereafter. by several letters, the petitioner was asked to deposit the aforesaid amount, Without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Shri Dubey further submits that it is the basic fundamental principle of law' that no order, visiting with penal consequences, can be passed without affording an 'oppoitunity of hearing. Thus, the impugned order is vitiated. \\ \ :ly k On the other hand, Si Bhatia, 1€arned Deputy Government hr Advocate ppearing or the respondent N0. 1 to 3 submits that it is a f not clear from the documents tiled by the petitioner asto whether an opportunity to show cause was afforded to the petitioner or not. However, if no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before passing the pugned order, the’petitioner is entitled to im benefi of pnciple of natural justice. t ri In View of te foregoing, on perusal of the documents, it appears h that on insption, pnalty of Rs. 25,000/— was imposed on the ec a e same ate i.e. 30.10.2006, without affording an opportunity of d hearng to the petitioner. . i Accordngly, the impugd orders dated 15.09.2010 (Annexure i ne P/l), 22.10.2010 (Annexure P/2) and 30.10.2006 (Annexure P/3) are quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to proceed with the matter after affording an opportity ofharing to the petitioner. un e No order asto costs. l Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge