# Committee of Management, BDSUM Vidyalaya, Ballia & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 3 ILRA 1267
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-07-21
- **Case number:** C.M.W.P. No. 17261 of 2015
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/committee-of-management-bdsum-vidyalaya-ballia-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43385
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Principle
of Natural Justice-refusal of grant in aidimpugned order passed by adopting
unique method talking on mobile phoneheld-not fair-principle of Natural Justice
violated-order quashed.
Held: Para-14
In
view
of
the
aforesaid
facts
and
circumstances, as the Principal Secretary
deviced a noval method of hearing which is
completely alien to the legal jurisprudence;
failed to give any notice to the parties for
hearing fixing a date; and proceeded to talk
about the matter with the parties on mobile
phone in the absence of the other, it is plain
and simple that he acted in utter violation
of the principles of natural justice and
against the doctrine of fair play in passing
the impugned order.

## Text

3 All]
Committee of Management, BDSUM Vidyalaya, Ballia & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1267
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.07.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 17261 of 2015
Committee
of
Management,
BDSUM
Vidyalaya, Ballia & Anr.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Gopal Ji Rai
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Principle
of Natural Justice-refusal of grant in aidimpugned order passed by adopting
unique method talking on mobile phoneheld-not fair-principle of Natural Justice
violated-order quashed.
Held: Para-14
In
view
of
the
aforesaid
facts
and
circumstances, as the Principal Secretary
deviced a noval method of hearing which is
completely alien to the legal jurisprudence;
failed to give any notice to the parties for
hearing fixing a date; and proceeded to talk
about the matter with the parties on mobile
phone in the absence of the other, it is plain
and simple that he acted in utter violation
of the principles of natural justice and
against the doctrine of fair play in passing
the impugned order.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.)
1. The institution of the petitioners
has been refused grant in aid by the
impugned order dated 15.09.2010.
2. The said order has been passed by
Principal Secretary, Sanskrit Shiksha
Anubhag, U.P. Shasan, in pursuance of
the directions of this Court contained in
the order dated 03.04.2014 passed in Writ
-C No. 15335 of 2014, C/M Sri Deena
Nath
Tiwari
Sanskrit
Uchchattar
Madhyamik Vidyalaya and another.
3. In disposing of the above writ
petition this Court, had directed the
respondent no. 1 of the said writ petition
to
consider
the
grievance
of
the
petitioners with regard to entitlement of
grant in aid after hearing the petitioners.
4.
One of the ground on which the
above order has been assailed is that without
hearing the petitioners no order could legally
be passed on the basis of talk on the
telephone/mobile with the parties concern.
5. Learned Standing Counsel was
directed to file counter affidavit within
four weeks on 01.04.2015, but till date no
counter affidavit has been filed.
6.
Learned Standing Counsel after
going through the impugned order is himself
surprised and submits that there appears to be
no hearing in the matter and the Adjudication
Authority had simply talked with the parties
on mobile. In such circumstances, the Court
may quash the order and sent the matter back
for reconsideration.
7. The Court is surprised at the manner
in which the impugned order has been passed
by non else than a Senior Officer of the
Indian Administrative Service holding the
post of the Principal Secretary.
8. The principles of natural justice are
the
backbone
of
the
any
administrative/judicial system. No order of
any administrative authority or the court of
law can be sustained until and unless it has
1268
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been passed following the principles of
natural justice. It is a cardinal principle of
law that no one can be condemned unheard.
Therefore, it is fundamental to give
opportunity of hearing to the litigating parties
before adjudicating their civil rights. This
opportunity of hearing to the parties is not an
empty formality and has to be an opportunity
in real sense.
9. In this context, it is pertinent to
note
that
the
purpose
of
giving
opportunity of hearing is to give prior
notice to the parties of the date fixed so
that the party affected may prepare
himself on facts and the proposition of
law to answer the contention of the other
party or the queries raised by the Court or
authority. No party can be taken by a
surprise and asked to make submission
without allowing sufficient time to enable
him to prepare on the subject.
10. In addition to the above, it is
cardinal to the principles of natural justice
that the hearing of any matter has to be in
presence of the respective parties. The
adjudicating authority must ensure that
the contesting parties are present before
him when one of them is being heard to
enable the other party to listen and make
effective reply. Any hearing in the matter
in the absence of the other party would
again not be an effective hearing in true
spirit of the principles of natural justice.
11. In the instant case, a plain
reading of the impugned order, as has also
been accepted by the learned Standing
Counsel, reveals that the adjudicating
authority had not given any notice to the
parties fixing any date of hearing in the
matter; rather he has simply chosen to
converse with the parties on their mobile.
It is only on the basis of the aforesaid talk
with the parties on mobile that he
proceeded to pass the impugned order.
12. The conversation he had with the
parties on mobile was not in presence of
the other party. The said party could not
have any idea or estimation of the
conversation that
took place between
adjudicating authority and the other party
putting him to a loss to reply in defence.
In this way, in effect no proper
opportunity of hearing was given to the
parties.
13. The Court hastens to add that an
adjudicating authority in all fairness is not
supposed to talk or discuss any matter
which is before him for adjudication with
any party much less the litigating party
outside the office or in the absence of the
other party.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, as the Principal
Secretary deviced a noval method of
hearing which is completely alien to the
legal jurisprudence; failed to give any
notice to the parties for hearing fixing a
date; and proceeded to talk about the
matter with the parties on mobile phone in
the absence of the other, it is plain and
simple that he acted in utter violation of
the principles of natural justice and
against the doctrine of fair play in passing
the impugned order.
15. Accordingly, the impugned
order dated 28.10.2014 passed by the
Secretary, Sanskrit Shiksha Anubhag,
U.P., Lucknow is hereby quashed and a
writ of certiorari is accordingly directed to
be issued with liberty to him to pass a
fresh order in accordance with law, as
expeditiously
as
possible,
preferably
within a period of six weeks from the date
3 All] Arvind & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1269
of production of a certified copy of this
order.
16. The writ petition is allowed with
no orders as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.09.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.K. SHUKLA, J.
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J.
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 19074 of
2015
Arvind & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Faizan Ahmad, S.F.A. Naqvi, Sri M.M.
Tripathi, Sri N.S. Mishra, Sri P.C. Dwivedi
Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A., Sri Anurag Khanna, Sri Sumit
Daga
Constitution of India, Art.-226-quashing of
FIR-offence under section 420; 467, 468,
471, 406 IPC-argument that allegation
relates Civil in nature-no offence for
criminal
prosecution
made
out
court
explained difference between civil and
criminal wrong-further apprehension of
harassment and foul investigation-SSP
concern shall look into the matter-petition
dismissed-till credible evidence there or till
submission of charge sheet-arrest stayed.
Held: Para-20
The difference between civil wrong and
criminal wrong turns on two different
objects, for civil wrong, the wrong doer
is not punished rather contrarily the
suffers gets a definite benefit from the
law, whereas for criminal wrong the
main object of law is to punish the
wrong doer. In the present case, there is
prima facie amalgam of both, that the
firm in question has been put to loss and
has been cheated.
Case Law discussed:
1992 (1) SCC 1; 2011 (7) SCC 59; (1996) 5
SCC 591; 2008 (9) SCC 677; [2014 (4) SCC
453]; [1994 (4) SCC 260].
(Delivered by Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.)
1. Petitioners who are two in number
are before this Court with a request to
quash
the
FIR
dated
16.07.2015,
registered as Case Crime No. 362 of
2015, under Sections 420, 467 ,468, 471,
406 IPC, Police Station Parta pur,
District Meerut and for sommanding the
Respondents not to harass the petitioners.
2. Petitioners before this Court are
stating that they are partners of M/s A.M.
Associates,
a
partnership
firm
that
functions in the name and style of M/s
O.S.G. Exim Services Private Limited.
Said firm is engaged in providing and
uploading all the required documents and
information of the export and bank
realization details on the DGFT website
and generate an application for obtaining
the Licenses and acting as a liaison agent.
Petitioners submit that Sharda Exports
executed power of attorney in the name of
its employees namely Prabhash Chandra
Sharma, the Manager as well as Gurnam
Singh, Senior Executive to be the
authorised signatory for signing of
application, Bank Realisation Certificates,
shipping bills and other documents
required for issuance and obtaining of the
Focus Product Licenses and to make and
to make necessary amendments and
changes in the document. Petitioners are
stating that whatever activity has been
carried out by them, same has been at the
instruction and directives of Prabash