1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 65 OF 2005 Laxman M. Nerlekar ..... Petitioner. V/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. ..... Respondents. ----- Mr. R.L. Nerlekar for the petitoiner. Mr. Ramesh Kelkar for the respondents. ----- CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND V.M.KANADE, J. DATE : 8TH APRIL, 2008. P.C.: 1. The challenge in the present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order passed by the Insurance Ombudsman, Maharashtra & Goa at Mumbai dated 6th August, 2004. The application of the applicant was partially accepted and partially declined. The main argument addressed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. He was not heard and the order was passed in his absence. According to the petitioner, the case was fixed on 06/08/2004 on which day a reply was filed on behalf of respondent No.1 and because of very heavy rains 2 in Mumbai, the Counsel for the Petitioner could not remain present for arguments and considering the pleadings, the order has been passed. The following portion recorded in the impugned order shows that the Petitioner's Counsel was not heard before passing the impugned order:- "A joint hearing was proposed to be held but as Shri Nerlekar did not appear for the hearing the Company's deposition was taken on 2nd August, 2004. It was noted, however, that Shri Nerlekar's written submission dated 17.09.2003 is quite comprehensive to reflect his view points and has already been taken on record." 2. It was a case where different arguments could have been addressed by the Counsel for the Petitioner. The basic rule of law contemplates that compliance with the principle of audi alteram partem is not a mere formality but it is a substantive right available to the parties. It would not be correct in law to assume that the order passed by the authorities would be the same whether the parties are heard or not. Every case has to be dealt with on its own merits but, certainly, after hearing the parties concerned. The requirement of hearing and recording of reason is an essence of quasi-judicial proceedings and in the absence of 3 which the order would be vitiated. It was not a case where the petitioner had taken adjournments and was trying to delay the proceedings. For inevitable circumstances, the Counsel for the Petitioner could not appear and it was expected of the Insurance Ombudsman to hear the parties before passing the impugned order. We do not propose to comment upon the other contentions raised by the Petitioner on merits as we are satisfied that the opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioner by the Insurance Ombudsman before passing the impugned order. 3. Resultantly, the impugned order is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the Insurance Ombudsman on 29/04/2008 who shall dispose of the matter after hearing the parties in accordance with law. CHIEF JUSTICE V.M. KANADE, J.