# Smt. Ram Sawari Devi & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 1 ILRA 199
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-01-13
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 1191 of 2016
- **Bench:** Ran Vijai Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-ram-sawari-devi-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43405
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Opportunity of hearing-when requiredorder
entailing
Civil
consequenceopportunity of hearing must-petitioner
being Pradhan of village in question and
beneficiary
of
BPL
Card
holder-by
impugned order recovery sought to be
made-without opportunity of hearingheld-illegal-quashed.
Held: Para-12
Learned standing counsel has not been
able to demonstrate from the perusal of
recovery certificate that anywhere the
version of the petitioners has been
considered. It is settled law that any
200
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order which leads to civil consequences
must be passed in conformity with the
principles of natural justice. Since here
the impugned order has been passed in
derogation of principle of natural justice,
therefore,
impugned
orders/recovery
certificates cannot be sustained in the
eye of law.
Case Law discussed:
1952 SCR 284:AIR 1952 SC 75:1952 Cri LJ
510; (1978) 1 SCC 248:(1978) 2 SCR 621; AIR
1975 Supreme Court 266; air 1989 SC 620;
AIR 2001 SC 3707; (2010 (6) AWC 5762);
(2011 (6) ADJ 787)

## Text

1 All. Smt. Ram Sawari Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
199
17.
The statement of objects and
reasons accompanying with the amendment
Act 2009 speaks that the said amendment has
been brought into the Act to remove the
discrimination between the daughter and
grand-daughter. The purpose of amendment
is obvious as earlier the married daughter
was included in the definition of 'dependents'
of freedom fighter. Whereas in case of grand
daughter only unmarried grand daughter was
included in the definition of 'dependents' of
freedom fighter. It appears that legislatures
thought it discriminatory between the two
and by amending the Act 1993, they had
included the married grand-daughter also in
the definition of 'dependents' of freedom
fighters. It is purely new legislation without
having any explanatory effect of any
provision available under the Act.
18. The scope of explanation has
been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in paragraph 53 of its judgment
rendered in the case of S.Sundaram Pillai
and others (Supra), in which the Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
has
held
that
the
explanation cannot in any way interfere
with or change the enactment, rather it
assists the Court in interpreting the true
purport and intendment of the enactment.
19.
The purpose of statement of
objects and reasons as has been discussed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Utkal Contractions and Joinery (P) Ltd.
(Supra) is very limited to understand the
background and the antecedent state of
affairs leading up to the legislation. It
shows the intention of the legislation to
amend the Act. The object is very clear as
the statement of objects and reasons states
that the impugned amendment was made
to remove the discrimination between
daughter and grand daughter. It is purely a
substantive amendment, which cannot be
said to be a retrospective unless the Act
provide so, whereas in this case no such
provision is provided under the Act that
the amendment in question shall have
retrospective force.
20. In view of the aforesaid
submissions, we are of the view that the
impugned
amendment
of
2009
is
prospective in nature and it does not apply
from the date of substantive enactment of
the Act 1993. In the result the writ
petition stands dismissed.
-------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.01.2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.
Writ-C No. 1191 of 2016
Smt. Ram Sawari Devi & Ors. Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Aditya Kumar Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Opportunity of hearing-when requiredorder
entailing
Civil
consequenceopportunity of hearing must-petitioner
being Pradhan of village in question and
beneficiary
of
BPL
Card
holder-by
impugned order recovery sought to be
made-without opportunity of hearingheld-illegal-quashed.
Held: Para-12
Learned standing counsel has not been
able to demonstrate from the perusal of
recovery certificate that anywhere the
version of the petitioners has been
considered. It is settled law that any
200
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order which leads to civil consequences
must be passed in conformity with the
principles of natural justice. Since here
the impugned order has been passed in
derogation of principle of natural justice,
therefore,
impugned
orders/recovery
certificates cannot be sustained in the
eye of law.
Case Law discussed:
1952 SCR 284:AIR 1952 SC 75:1952 Cri LJ
510; (1978) 1 SCC 248:(1978) 2 SCR 621; AIR
1975 Supreme Court 266; air 1989 SC 620;
AIR 2001 SC 3707; (2010 (6) AWC 5762);
(2011 (6) ADJ 787)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.)
1.
Heard Sri A.K. Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioners and learned
standing
counsel
for
the
Staterespondents.
2. Through this writ petition, prayer
has been made to issue writ of certiorari
quashing the order dated 16.10.2015
passed by Block Development Officer, Lar
Block, District Deoria as well as order
dated
22.8.2015
passed
by
Chief
Development Officer, Deoria- respondent
no. 2 by which recovery certificate has
been issued against each of the petitioners
for illegal allotment of houses under the
Indra Housing Scheme.
3. Petitioner no. 1 happened to be
Pradhan and remaining petitioners are
beneficiaries. The reasons assigned in the
impugned order are that the petitioners no. 2,
3 and 4 (beneficiaries) were not BPL card
holders. The submission is that the
petitioners no. 2, 3 and 4 are the members of
BPL family. Learned counsel for the
petitioners also contends that before issuing
the recovery certificate, any kind of show
cause notice or opportunity was not offered
to the petitioners.
4.

Learned
standing
counsel
appearing
for
the
State-respondents
submits that he may be granted time to
seek instructions in this matter to verify as
to whether opportunity was offered or not.
5. The Apex Court in the case of
Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election
Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405 :
(1978) 2 SCR 272; has held that reasons
cannot be supplied by filing counter
affidavit. From perusal of the impugned
recovery certificates, which have been
brought on record as annexure- 4A, 4B
and 4C and 6 to the writ petition, it
transpires that neither any opportunity
was offered to the petitioner nor their
cases have been considered.
6. In its comprehensive connotation
every thing that affects a citizen in his
civil life inflicts a civil consequence must
be passed in conformity with the
principles of natural justice.
7. In State of Orissa Vs. (Miss)
Birapani Dei this Court held that even an
administrative order which involves civil
consequences must be made consistently
with the rules of natural justice. The
person concerned must be informed of the
case, the evidence in support thereof
supplied and must be given a fair
opportunity to meet the case before an
adverse decision is taken. Since no such
opportunity was given it was held that
superannuation was in violation of
principles of natural justice.
8. In State of W.B. Vs. Anwar Ali
Sarkar, 1952 SCR 284: AIR 1952 SC 75:
1952 Cri LJ 510; per majority, a seven
judge Bench held that the rule of
procedure laid down by law comes as
much within the purview of Article 14 of
1 All. Smt. Ram Sawari Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
201
the Constitution as any rule of substantive
law. In Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of
India (1978) 1 SCC 248: (1978) 2 SCR
621 another Bench of seven judges held
that the substantive and procedural laws
and action taken under them will have to
pass the test under article 14. The test of
reasons and justice cannot be abstract.
They cannot be divorced from the needs
of the nation. The tests have to be
pragmatic otherwise they would cease to
be reasonable. The procedure prescribed
must be just, fair and reasonable even
though there is no specific provision in a
statute or rules made thereunder for
showing cause against action proposed to
be taken against an individual, which
affects the right of that individual. The
duty to give reasonable opportunity to be
heard will be implied from the nature of
the function to be performed by the
authority which has the power to take
punitive
or
damaging
action.
Even
executive
authorities
which
take
administrative
action
involving
any
deprivation of or restriction on inherent
fundamental rights of citizens, must take
care to see that justice is not only done
but manifestly appears to be done. They
have a duty to proceed in a way which is
free from even the appearance of
arbitrariness,
unreasonableness
or
unfairness. They have to act in a manner
which is patently impartial and meets the
requirement of natural justice.
9. The law must therefore be now
taken to be well settled that procedure
prescribed for depriving a person of
livelihood must meet the challenge of
Article 14 and such law would be liable to
be tested on the anvil of Article 14 and
the procedure prescribed by a statute or
statutory rule or rules or orders affecting
the
civil
right
or
result
in
civil
consequences would have to answer the
requirement of Article 14. So it must be
right, just and fair and not arbitrary,
fanciful or oppressive. There can be no
distinction
between
quasi-judicial
function and an administrative function
for the purpose of principles of natural
justice. The aim of both administrative
inquiry as well as the quasi judicial
inquiry is to arrive at a just decision and if
a rule or natural justice is calculated to
secure justice or to put in negatively, to
prevent miscarriage of justice, it is
difficult to see why it should be
applicable only to quasi-judicial inquiry
and not to administrative inquiry. It must
logically apply to both.
10. Therefore, fair play in action
requires that the procedure adopted must
be just, fair and reasonable. The manner
of exercise of the power and its impact on
the rights of the person affected would be
in conformity with the principles of
natural justice. Article 21 clubs life with
liberty, dignity of person with means of
livelihood without which the glorious
content of dignity of person would be
reduced to animal existence. When it is
interpreted that the colour and content of
procedure established by law must be in
conformity with the minimum fairness
and processual justice, it would relieve
legislative
callousness
despising
opportunity of being heard and fair
opportunities of defence. Article 14 has a
pervasive
processual
potency
and
versatile quality, equalitarian in its soul
and allergic to discriminatory dictates.
Equality is the antithesis of arbitrariness.
It is thereby, conclusively held by this
Court that the principles of natural justice
are part of Article 14 and the procedure
prescribed by law must be just, fair and
reasonable.
202
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
11. Since the order impugned leads to
civil consequences, therefore the same
could not be passed without affording any
opportunity of hearing. Reference may be
had to the judgments of the Apex Court in
M/s Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., A.I.R.
1975 Supreme Court 266, Raghunath
Thakur Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., A.I.R
1989 SC 620, and M/s. Southern Painters
(Supra), Gronsons Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd.
& Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,
A.I.R. 2001 SC 3707, as well as Division
Bench judgment of this Court in (Smt Rajni
Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.), (2010
(6) AWC 5762) and (Society for Education
and Welfare Awareness (Sewa) thru it
secretary vs. Union of India thru Ministry of
Human welfare (Manav Sansadhan) New
Delhi and others) (2011 (6) ADJ 787).
12. Learned standing counsel has
not been able to demonstrate from the
perusal
of
recovery
certificate
that
anywhere the version of the petitioners
has been considered. It is settled law that
any
order
which
leads
to
civil
consequences
must
be
passed
in
conformity with the principles of natural
justice. Since here the impugned order has
been passed in derogation of principle of
natural
justice,
therefore,
impugned
orders/recovery certificates cannot be
sustained in the eye of law.
13.
In the result, writ petition
succeeds
and is allowed
and the
impugned
order
dated
22.8.2015
(annexure- 4A, 4B, 4C) and the recovery
certificate dated 16.10.2015 (annexure-6)
are hereby quashed. However, allowing
the writ petition will not preclude the
respondents to proceed in accordance
with law.
-------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.02.2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.
Service Bench No. 1517 of 2001
Sewak Saran Gupta [Objection filed]
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.
...Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner:
C.S. Pandey, Chandra Shekhar Pandey,
Vijay Dixit
Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., A.K. Srivastava, Ashok Kumar
Srivastava,
Deepak
Seth,
Sanjieva
Shankhdhar
Constitution of India, Art.-226-claim of
interest-delay in payment of retiral
benefits-petitioner retired on 31.03.99
working
as
District
Judge-03.08.99
pension paper forwarded to Director
Pension 29.01.2000 pension payment
order send to Accountant General-after 8
months error rectified on 20.09.2000
pension paid on 12.02.01-held-entitled
for interest @ 12% p.a on delayed
payment-payable within 30 days-after
expiry of aforesaid period 9% interest
shall be payable on total amount of
interest-from the date of judgment to
actual payment made.
Held: Para-30 & 31
30. Retiral benefits are the accumulated
savings of a lifetime of service of a
Government servants. In a large number
of cases, the retiral benefits are the only
source of livelihood and means of
survival
not
only
for
the
retired
Government servant but for his entire
family. If the retirel benefits are not paid
in time, the very survival of the retired
employee and his family members comes