# Navi Hasan v. Pachhimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. 154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 153
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-19
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 10825 of 2022
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/navi-hasan-v-pachhimanchal-vidyut-vitran-nigam-ltd-anr-154-indian-law-reports-48730
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-Electricity-Demand orderLegality of -Respondent No. 2 deliberately
ignored the direction and passed the
impugned order-Impugned order is a preprinted order- there is no consideration of
the objection filed by the petitionerrespondent no. 2 violated the principles of
natural
justice-Impugned
order
is
quashed.(Para 1 to 16)

B. The first and foremost principle of
natural justice is commonly known as audi
alterm partem rule. It says that no one
should be condemned unheard. Notice is
the first limb of this principle. The purpose
of following the principles of natural
justice is the prevention of miscarriage of
justice.(Para 9 to 13)

The petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
Uma Nath Pandey & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.
(2009) 12 SCC 40

## Text

8 All. Navi Hasan Vs. Pachhimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr.
153
vesting. The building of the Imambara is
claimed to be 100 years old. We must
remark that it is the petitioners' burden to
establish that the building is 100 years' old
or may be younger, but that it was in
existence on the date of vesting, that is to
say, 7th July, 1949. The benefit of Section 9
of the Act can be claimed only in respect of
such buildings as were in existence on the
date of vesting. A building, constructed
later on, cannot be held to be settled with
its owner, occupier etc. In this regard,
reference may be made to the decision of
this Court in Basti Ram vs. Nagar Nigam,
Ghaziabad and another, 1999 SCC
OnLine All 1850. In Basti Ram (supra), it
has been held:

"9. Learned counsel for the
appellant has argued that the land vested in
the plaintiff/appellant under Section 9 of
the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act Section 9 reads as follows:

"9. Private wells, trees in abadi
and buildings to be settled with the existing
owners or occupiers thereof.-- (All wells),
trees in abadi and all buildings situate
within the limits of estate belonging to or
held by an intermediary or tenant or other
person whether residing in the village or
not, shall continue to belong to or be held
by such intermediary tenant or person, as
the case may be, and the site of the wells or
the buildings within the area appurtenant
thereto shall be deemed to be settled with
him by the State Government on such terms
and conditions as may be prescribed."

10. Provisions of Section 9 are
applicable only when there is evidence and
proof of the factum that there existed well
or building on the land in question on the
date of vesting. There is no averment in the
plaint nor there is any finding of fact in this
regard. Therefore, the finding of the lower
appellate court that the land cannot be said
to have been settled with the plaintiff is
correct. ........."

 (emphasis by Court)

14. Here, the petitioners have
annexed no more, by way of evidence
about the existence of the abadi in Plot
No.146, than the extract of the Six Yearly
Khatauni for the Fasli Year 1423-1428,
that would correspond to the Calendar
Years 2015-16 to 2020-21. There is
absolutely no evidence on record, by
even as much as a hint, to show that the
building that the petitioners claim to be a
hundred years old Imambara was in
existence on the date of vesting. No
doubt, there is an averment to that effect,
but it is sans evidence. It is difficult,
therefore,
to
accept
the
petitioners'
contention that there was an Imambara or
a building, by whatever name called,
belonging to the petitioners in existence
on the date of vesting that could be held
to be settled with the petitioners under
Section 9 of the Act.

15. In the circumstances, we do not
find any force in this petition. It is,
accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 153
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ C No. 10825 of 2022

Navi Hasan ...Petitioner
Versus
Pachhimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. &
Anr. ...Respondents
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Surya Narayan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rajesh Yadav, Sri Pranjal Mehrotra

A. Civil Law-Electricity-Demand orderLegality of -Respondent No. 2 deliberately
ignored the direction and passed the
impugned order-Impugned order is a preprinted order- there is no consideration of
the objection filed by the petitionerrespondent no. 2 violated the principles of
natural
justice-Impugned
order
is
quashed.(Para 1 to 16)

B. The first and foremost principle of
natural justice is commonly known as audi
alterm partem rule. It says that no one
should be condemned unheard. Notice is
the first limb of this principle. The purpose
of following the principles of natural
justice is the prevention of miscarriage of
justice.(Para 9 to 13)

The petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
Uma Nath Pandey & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.
(2009) 12 SCC 40

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.
&
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)

1. Heard Sri Surya Narayan, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pranjal
Mehrotra,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed
praying for following reliefs:-

"I) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing the
demand order dated 21.03.2022 passed by
the
Executive
Engineer/Prescribed
Authority Electricity Distribution Division
II, Moradabad filed as Annexure No.1 to
this writ petition.

II) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus for summing the
opposite
party
no.2
Executive
Engineer/Prescribed Authority Electricity
Distribution Division II, Moradabad and
punishing him for non compliance of the
order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the
Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in
Writ -C No. 26241 of 2021 as well as order
dated order dated 18.02.2022 passed in
Criminal Misc. Application No. 482 Cr.
P.C. No. 25367 of 2021 and relating file of
the petitioner may kindly be summoned for
considering real controversy"

3. The petitioner has earlier filed
Writ-C No. 26241 of 2021 (Navi Hasan
Versus U.P. Power Corporation Limited and
2 others), which was disposed of by this
Court vide order dated 22.10.2021, the
operative portion of aforesaid order is
reproduced below:-

"...........Accordingly,
the
writ
petition is disposed of with the following
directions:

(i) subject to the petitioner
depositing a sum of Rs. 25,000/- within a
period of one month from today not later
than 30 November 2021, the respondent no.
2 shall make available to the petitioner all
adverse material that is being relied in
support of the communication dated
07.08.2021 (annexed as Annexure No. 1 to
the petition);

(ii) upon being thus confronted
with the adverse material, the petitioner
shall have a right to file a detailed
objection within a further period of two
weeks therefrom annexing therewith all
material as the petitioner may seek to rely
on;
8 All. Navi Hasan Vs. Pachhimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr.
155

(iii)
upon
receipt
of
such
objection, the said respondent no. 2 shall
fix a date for hearing in the matter within
a period of two weeks therefrom and pass
appropriate and reasoned order, strictly in
accordance with law, after hearing the
parties within a period of one month
therefrom.

For a period of three months from
today or till disposal of the aforesaid
objection, whichever is earlier, no coercive
measure shall be adopted against the
petitioner, subject to his complying with the
terms of this order.

All further recovery shall abide
by the decision to be made by the
respondent no. 2.

Failing such objection being filed
by the petitioner, for any reasons, the only
remedy that may remain open to him may
be to contest the matter in appeal........."

4. Despite the aforesaid order, the
respondent no.2 has passed the impugned
order
dated
21.03.2022
in
complete
disregard to the directions issued by this
Court
vide
aforequoted
order
dated
22.10.2021 in Writ-C No. 26241 of 202.

5. On 12.07.2022, this Court has
passed a detail order and observed as
under:-

".......We
have
perused
the
impugned order and we find that it is pre
printed in which merely the name and
address of the petitioner, date of notice and
amount have been filled up. The conclusion
itself are pre printed. Direction of this Court
as given in the aforenoted order has been
completely ignored consciously. This, prima
facie shows gross misconduct on the part of
the respondent no.2.

In view of aforesaid, we direct the
respondent nos. 1 and 2 to file counter
affidavit by means of their personal
affidavit within a week, failing which the
respondent no.2 shall remain personally
present before this Court........"

6. Today, personal affidavit of the
respondent no.1 and counter affidavit by
means of personal affidavit of respondent
no.2 have been filed by Sri Pranjal
Mehrotra, Advocate. In paragraph nos. 4,5,
and 6 of the personal affidavit/counter
affidavit, the respondent no. 2 has stated as
under:-

"4.
That
it
is
respectfully
submitted that the respondent no.2 has
issued the office Memorandum No. 2951
dated 13.07.2022 cancelling the earlier
order
No.
10503
dated
21.03.2022
(Annexure No.1 to the writ petition). Copy
of the aforesaid office memorandum No.
2951 dated 13.07.2022 has also been sent
to the petitioner.

5. That it is further respectfully
submitted that in compliance of the above
quoted directions passed by this Hon'ble
Court vide judgment and order dated
22.10.2021, the respondent no.2 has issued
letter No. 2983 dated 14.07.2022 to the
petitioner,
inter-alia,
informing
the
petitioner
about
the
aforesaid
office
memorandum No. 2951 dated 13.07.2022
and further providing him copy of the
checking report and further giving him two
weeks time to reply alongwith evidence.

6. That the respondent no.2
tenders the unconditional and unqualified
apology for the omission on his part in
issuing the earlier order no.10503 dated
21.03.2022 and for the inconvenience
caused to this Hon'ble Court and begs for
acceptance of the same and to be pardoned.
The respondent no.2 being a responsible
Government Officer, has the highest regard
for the majesty and order passed by this
156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Hon'ble Court of any court of law. The
respondent no.2 has no intention to flout
the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in
any manner whatsoever".

7. The impugned order dated
21.03.2022 passed by the respondent no.2
is a pre-printed order in which the
respondent no.2 has merely filled by pen
the name of the petitioner, checking
report number and date, notice number
and date and the amount of Rs.
5,19,525.00. At the top of the order, the
respondent no.2 has mentioned by pen as
under:-

"fjV la[;k 26241@2021 ek0 mOo
U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 22-10-2021 ds
vuqikyu es miHkksDrk ds }kjk :i;k 25]000-00
tek djk fn;s x;s gSa dqy jktLo 5]44]52525]000=5]19]525-00".

8. The fact as aforementioned leaves
no manner of doubt that the respondent
no.2 while passing the impugned order was
very much aware of the order dated
22.10.2021 passed by this Court in Writ-C
No. 26241 of 2021 and yet he deliberately
ignored the direction and passed the
impugned order arbitrary, illegally and in
breach of principle of natural justice. The
impugned order is pre-printed order in
which merely the name and address of the
petitioner, checking report number and
date, notice number and date and a sum of
Rs. 5,19,525/- has been filled by pen. There
is absolutely no consideration of the
objection filed by the petitioner. Thus, the
respondent no.2 has violated the principles
of natural justice and acted arbitrarily and
illegally. The impugned order has been
issued with pre-conceived mind. Since the
impugned
is
in
pre-printed
format,
therefore, it appears that the respondent
no.2 is habitual of passing assessment
orders in the manner as aforesaid and even
has no respect to the orders passed by this
Court.

Law of Natural Justice

9. In the case of Uma Nath Pandey &
Ors. vs State of U.P.& Anr. [(2009) 12 SCC
page 40 para 3], the Hon'ble Supreme
Court noted the concept of natural justice
and observed that it is another name of
common sense justice. The adherence to
principles of natural justice as recognized
by all civilized States is of supreme
importance when a quasi-judicial body
embarks on determining disputes between
the parties, or any administrative action
involving civil consequences is in issue.

10. The first and foremost principle
of natural justice is commonly known as
audi alteram partem rule. It says that no
one should be condemned unheard. Notice
is the first limb of this principle. It must be
precise
and
unambiguous.
It
should
appraise the party determinatively the case
he has to meet. Time given for the purpose
should be adequate so as to enable him to
make his representation. In the absence of
a notice of the kind and reasonable
opportunity, the order passed becomes
wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential
that a party should be put on notice of the
case before any adverse order is passed
against him. It is an approved rule of fair
play.

11. The principles of natural justice
are those rules which have been laid
down by the Courts as being the
minimum protection of the rights of the
individual
against
the
arbitrary
procedure that may be adopted by a
judicial,
quasi-judicial
and
administrative authority while making
8 All. Navi Hasan Vs. Pachhimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr.
157
an order affecting those rights. These
rules are intended to prevent such
authority from doing injustice. Even an
administrative order which involves civil
consequences must be consistent with the
rules of natural justice.

12. Expression `civil consequences'
encompasses infraction of not merely
property or personal rights but of civil
liberties, material deprivations, and nonpecuniary damages. In its wide umbrella
comes everything that affects a citizen in
his civil life.

13. Natural justice has been
variously defined by different Judges, for
instance a duty to act fairly, the substantial
requirements of justice, the natural sense of
what is right and wrong, fundamental
justice and fair-play in action. Over the
years by a process of judicial interpretation
two
rules
have
been
evolved
as
representing the principles of natural justice
in judicial process, including therein quasijudicial and administrative process. They
constitute the basic elements of a fair
hearing, having their roots in the innate
sense of man for fair-play and justice which
is not the preserve of any particular race or
country but is shared in common by all
men. The first rule is `nemo judex in causa
sua' or `nemo debet esse judex in propria
causa sua' that is no man shall be a judge in
his own cause. The second rule is `audi
alteram partem', that is, `hear the other
side'. A corollary has been deduced from
the above two rules and particularly the
audi alteram partem rule i.e. 'he who
shall decide anything without the other
side having been heard, although he may
have said what is right, will not have
been what is right' or in other words, as
it is now expressed, `justice should not
only be done but should manifestly be
seen to be done'. Natural justice is the
essence of fair adjudication, deeply
rooted in tradition and conscience, to be
ranked as fundamental. The purpose of
following the principles of natural justice
is the prevention of miscarriage of
justice.

14. Whenever an order is struck down
as invalid being in violation of principles of
natural justice, there is no final decision of
the case and fresh proceedings are left
upon. All that is done is to vacate the order
assailed by virtue of its inherent defect, but
the proceedings are not terminated.

15. In his personal affidavit/counter
affidavit, the respondent no.2 has stated that he
has withdrawn the impugned order dated
21.03.2022 by order dated 13.07.2022 without
disclosing in his counter affidavit, the power
conferred upon him either under the Electricity
Act or under U.P. Electricity Supply Code,
2005 to recall/review the order. The impugned
order has been withdrawn by the respondent
no.2 during pendency of the writ petition and
without leave of the court. This itself prima
facie shows misconduct on the part of the
respondent no.2.

16. For all the reasons aforestated, the
impugned order dated 21.03.2022 is quashed.
The respondent no.2 is directed to confront the
petitioner with all adverse material within ten
days from today. Thereafter, the petitioner may
submit his objection before the respondent
no.2 within next three weeks. Thereafter, the
respondent no.2 shall pass a reasoned and
speaking assessment order in accordance with
law within next four weeks after affording
reasonable opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.

17. The writ petition is allowed with
cost
of
Rs.
1,00,000/-,
which
the
158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondent no.2 shall pay to the petitioner
by account payee cheque or bank draft.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 158
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 15854 of 2022

Komal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjay Kr. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law-Employment-fair price shop
agent-compassionate
appointmentrejection-challenged-petitioners
claims
dependency on her grandfather, during his
lifetime-she
claims
entitlement
to
compassionate appointment to the fair
price shop agency held by the deceasedAs per definition of family in Clause IV
(10) of the Government Order, petitioner
is neither included under any of the
specific relationship nor she pleaded any
special fact either before the authority or
the Court-Also the G.O. dated 05.08.2019
has not been challenged-Once, policy is
not shown to include a grandchild in
definition of family of a fair price shop
agent, that rule may never arise on
strength of indulgence granted by CourtHence, no substance in claim of the
petitioner.(Para 1 to 14)

The petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Ashok Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Misc.
Single No. 2899 of 2015
2. Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Misc.
Single No. 13015 of 2020

3. Akansha Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.Writ C No.
32296 of 2021

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal
Singh, J.)

1.

Heard
Shri
Sanjay
Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner and Shri Rajesh Khanna, learned
Standing Counsel.

2. Present writ petition has been filed
to quash the order dated 8.4.2022 passed by
respondent no.3/ District Supply Officer,
Prayagraj,
rejecting
the
petitioner's
application to grant her compassionate
appointment, as fair price shop agent at
Prakhand-1,
Nayapura,
Stanley
Road,
Prayagraj.

3. Undisputedly, the petitioner's grand
father namely Ram Naresh was the fair
price shop agent at the above described
location. It is the petitioner's case that the
said Ram Naresh ran the fair price shop
without any complaint till his death on
23.3.2019. He was survived by his three
sons - Uma Shanker (petitioner's father),
Shiv Shanker and Roop Chand and, two
married daughters - Smt. Abhilasha and
Smt. Kamlesh. According to the petitioner,
she has two brothers namely - Vishal and
Avinash and, one sister namely Smt. Ruchi.

4. In these circumstances, the
petitioner claims dependency on her grand
father, during his lifetime. Accordingly, she
claims
entitlement
to
compassionate
appointment re the fair price shop agency
held by the deceased Ram Naresh, in his
place. Reliance has been placed on three
decisions of this Court in Ashok Kumar