# Jai Ram Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 12 ILRA 494
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-11-18
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 18437 of 2020
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jai-ram-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45623
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

(A) Civil law - Administrative law - Principle of
audi alteram partem - fundamental principle
of the rules of natural justice - Exercise of a
power which affects the rights of an individual
must be exercised in a manner which is fair
and just and not arbitrarily or capriciously -
Administrative
order
involving
civil
consequences must necessarily be made in
conformity with rules of natural justice - Any
decision made without compliance of principle
of natural justice i.e. the rule of audi alteram
partem, cannot be sustained. (Para - 5)
Challenged a communication/order- whereunder the
petitioner has been directed to deposit an amount
pursuant to an enquiry report within a specified time
period failing which proceedings for recovery would
be initiated against him - No opportunity of hearing
afforded to the petitioner before passing the
aforesaid order and also during the course of the
enquiry . (Para - 3,4)

Held: - The impugned order passed by the
District Manager; U.P. Cooperative Federation
limited is held to be unsustainable being
violative of the rule of audi alteram partem
which is a fundamental principle of natural
justice. impugned order dated 01.09.2020 is
quashed. (Para - 7)

Writ Petition disposed of. (E-7)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appropriate forum provided for dealing
with these matters. The extraordinary
jurisdiction of Court is not to be invoked in
such cases."

11. Thus, for the reasons indicated
above, we decline to entertain the present
petition and relegate the petitioners to
pursue the alternative remedy as available
to them under the law. The writ petition is
accordingly dismissed.

12. No order as to costs.
----------
(2020)12ILR A494
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ - C No. 18437 of 2020

Jai Ram Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ram Samujh Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ram Gopal Tripathi

(A) Civil law - Administrative law - Principle of
audi alteram partem - fundamental principle
of the rules of natural justice - Exercise of a
power which affects the rights of an individual
must be exercised in a manner which is fair
and just and not arbitrarily or capriciously -
Administrative
order
involving
civil
consequences must necessarily be made in
conformity with rules of natural justice - Any
decision made without compliance of principle
of natural justice i.e. the rule of audi alteram
partem, cannot be sustained. (Para - 5)
Challenged a communication/order- whereunder the
petitioner has been directed to deposit an amount
pursuant to an enquiry report within a specified time
period failing which proceedings for recovery would
be initiated against him - No opportunity of hearing
afforded to the petitioner before passing the
aforesaid order and also during the course of the
enquiry . (Para - 3,4)

Held: - The impugned order passed by the
District Manager; U.P. Cooperative Federation
limited is held to be unsustainable being
violative of the rule of audi alteram partem
which is a fundamental principle of natural
justice. impugned order dated 01.09.2020 is
quashed. (Para - 7)

Writ Petition disposed of. (E-7)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Mahipal Singh Tomar Vs St. of U.P. & ors. ,
(2013) 16 SCC 771

2. Ridge Vs Baldwin, (1963) 2 AII ER 66 (HL)

3. Chief Constable of North Wales Plice Vs
Evans, (1982) AII ER 141 (HL)

4. St. of Orissa Vs Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269

5. U.P. Warehousing Corporation Vs Vijay
Narayan Vajpayee, (1980) 3 SCC 459

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,
J. & Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent
nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 and Sri Ram Gopal Tripathi,
learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel
for the parties, this writ petition is being finally
heard without calling for a counter affidavit.

3. The writ petition has been filed
seeking
to
challenge
a
communication/order
dated
01.09.2020
whereunder the petitioner has been directed
12 All. Jai Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
495
to deposit an amount pursuant to an enquiry
report dated 04.09.2016 within a specified
time period failing which proceedings for
recovery would be initiated against him.
The aforementioned enquiry report dated
04.09.2016 has also been challenged in the
writ petition.

4. There is nothing in the impugned
order dated 01.09.2020 or in the enquiry
report dated 04.09.2016 to show that any
opportunity of hearing was afforded to the
petitioner before passing the aforesaid
order and also during the course of the
enquiry.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent no.2 does not dispute the fact
that no opportunity of hearing was afforded
to the petitioner before passing the
aforesaid impugned order or during the
enquiry proceedings.

5. In administrative law the principle
of audi alteram partem has been held to be
a fundamental principle of the rules of
natural justice. This requires the maker of a
decision to give prior notice of the
proposed decision to the persons affected
and
an
opportunity
to
make
a
representation. The exercise of a power
which affects the rights of an individual
must be exercised in a manner which is fair
and just and not arbitrarily or capriciously.
An administrative order involving civil
consequences must necessarily be made in
conformity with rules of natural justice.
Any decision which has been made without
compliance
of
the
aforementioned
fundamental principle of natural justice i.e.
the rule of audi alteram partem, cannot be
sustained. For the aforesaid proposition of
law reference may be made to the decisions
in Mahipal Singh Tomar v State of Uttar
Pradesh and others1, Ridge v Baldwin2,
Chief Constable of North Wales Plice v
Evans3, State of Orissa v Binapani Dei4,
U.P. Warehousing Corporation v Vijay
Narayan Vajpayee5.

6.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent no.2 submits that a show
cause notice shall be issued to the
petitioner and he shall be given an
opportunity to submit his objections and
thereafter a final order in accordance
with law shall be passed.

7. In view of the aforesaid the
impugned order dated 01.09.2020 passed
by the respondent no.2 is held to be
unsustainable being violative of the rule of
audi
alteram
partem
which
is
a
fundamental principle of natural justice.
Consequently the impugned order dated
01.09.2020 is quashed.

8. The writ petition is disposed of
with a direction to the respondent no.2
to issue a show cause notice to the
petitioner within three weeks stating
therein specific points. The petitioner
shall have four weeks thereafter to
submit
his
reply/objections.
The
respondent no.2 shall, thereafter, pass a
reasoned
and
speaking
order
in
accordance with law, after affording
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,
expeditiously, preferably within next
four weeks.

9. It is made clear that we have not
expressed any opinion on merits of the case
of the petitioner.

10. It is further made clear that this
order shall not prevent the respondent
authorities to recover the dues in regard
to the unsupplied custom-milled-rice
(CMR)
from
the
respondent
ricemillers.
----------
496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2020)12ILR A496
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.10.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ - C No. 23223 of 2019

Ms. Swaraj Varun & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sudhir Bharti, Sri H.N. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Abhishek Gupta

(A) Civil law - Constitution of India - Article
21 - Maintenance and Welfare of Parents
and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Uttar
Pradesh
Maintenance
and
Welfare
of
Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014 -
Rule 21 - duty of the District Magistrate to
ensure that life and property of senior
citizens
of
the
District
(area
of
his
jurisdiction) are protected and they are able
to live with security and dignity . (Para - 5)

District Magistrate rejected the application
moved by petitioner no. 1 (unmarried daughter
of petitioner no. 2) - whereas respondent no. 5
is his daughter-in-law - under the Maintenance
and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
2007 - eviction of respondent no. 5 and her two
sons from the house-in-question. (Para - 2,4)

Held: - The prayer for eviction or dispossession
of the respondent no. 5 and her two sons from
the house-in-question could not have been
granted by the District Magistrate in exercise of
the powers conferred on him under Rule 21 of
the Rules, 2014. The issue of eviction or
dispossession of respondent no. 5 from the
house-in-question which is stated to be her
matrimonial house can only be examined by a
Civil Court in a proper proceeding. No bar under
Section 27 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
(Para - 29)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Waqf Alalaulad & anr. Vs M/s. Sundardas
Daulatram & sons, 1996 (1) ARC 578

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita
Agarwal, J. & Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. Heard Sri H.N. Singh learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Sudhir Bharti learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri Abhishek
Gupta learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This writ petition is directed
against the order dated 28.6.2019 passed by
the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh
Nagar, whereby he has rejected the
application moved by petitioner no. 1
namely Ms. Swaraj Varun under the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Senior Citizens Act,
2007"). The petitioner no. 1 is unmarried
daughter of petitioner no. 2, whereas
respondent no. 5 is his daughter-in-law.

3. The aforesaid order of rejection is
being challenged on the ground that the
petitioner no. 1 is a senior citizen aged about 60
years, whereas petitioner no. 2 (father of
petitioner no. 1) is 93 years old. The petitioner
no. 2 is incapable to move freely due to fracture
of his both hips. The brother of petitioner no. 1,
i.e. husband of respondent no. 5 had committed
suicide on 21.4.2004. The allegations are that
her brother (husband of respondent no. 5) had
died due to cruelty and atrocities committed by
her sister-in-law.

4. On 3.3.2019, respondent no. 5
threatened and abused both the petitioners