1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICCTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1280 OF 2007 Horizon Corporate Services Private Limited & Anr. ..... Petitioners. V/s The Union of India & Ors. ...... Respondents. ------ Mr. N.H. Seervai alongwith Mr. Rahul Chitnis i/b Mr. Sunil More for the petitioners. Mr. V.R. Dhond i/b M.P. Rege & Co. for respondent No.3. Mr. N.R. Prajapati alongwith Mr. Y.S. Bhate for Union of India. ------ CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 11TH APRIL, 2008. P.C 1. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties for some time. The main challenge in the present Writ Petition is that the amount for the shares which are apparently in the name of petitioners is not being paid to them solely on the ground that the petitioners are a part of the Makharias' group. According to the petitioners, this action is illegal besides being arbitrary and there is nothing 2 on record to substantiate that the petitioners can be termed directly or indirectly as a part of Makharias' group. 2. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has argued that there are documents and reasons with the respondents to treat the petitioners as a part of Makharias' group and consequently they are not entitled to money as claimed. 3. Be that as it may, it is not necessary for us to examine various legal facets, merit or otherwise of the contentions raised before us by the learned Counsel for the respective parties, particularly in view of the admitted position that these documents and reasons were never put to the petitioners before denying them of their right to claim payment. The view taken by the respondents, according to the petitioner, has civil consequences of denying the the petitioners of their property unequivocally. The said communication adversely affects the right of the party as it is not in accordance with the principles of natural justice which is a basic rule of law. 4. We have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the communication is vitiated by not following the principle of audi alteram partem. At this stage, we may notice that the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 fairly stated that they would have no hesitation in providing requisite documents and reasons to the petitioners to which the Petitioners may file reply and after hearing them, the 3 competent authority would pass the appropriate order. The petitioners are also not averse to this proposal. 5. In view of the above circumstances, we direct that the said communication will not be given effect to. We also direct the respondent No.3 to furnish complete documents which they propose to rely upon against the petitioners for denying their claim within two weeks from today. Reply thereto shall be filed within two weeks thereafter and within four weeks thereafter, after granting hearing to the Petitioners or their representative, the competent authority shall pass the order in accordance with law. Needless to state that it shall be obligatory on the part of respondent No.3 to communicate the order forthwith to the petitioners who will be at liberty to take action in accordance with law. 6. With the above observations, Writ Petition is disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE V.M. KANADE, J.