Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying for quashing the Order dated 30th May, 2003 (Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (respondent no.2).
From the averments made in the Writ Petition, it transpires that on 22nd May, 2003, while the deliveryman of the petitioner was carrying the Cylinders on a vehicle, the Field Officer, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Mirzapur made checking of the Cylinders.
An Inspection Report dated 23rd May, 2003 (Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition) was prepared showing that 10 Cylinders mentioned in the Inspection Report, were underweight.
Thereafter, the impugned Order dated 30th May, 2003 (Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition) was passed imposing fine of Rs. 20,000/- on the petitioner.
It was mentioned in the said Order that the aforesaid 10 Cylinders were "un-sealed and underweight (underweight varying from 1 Kg. to 2 Kg.)".
The petitioner submitted a Representation dated 5th June, 2003 (Annexure 6 to the Writ Petition) before the respondent no.2 denying the allegations made against the petitioner in the said Order dated 30th May, 2003 whereby fine of Rs. 20,000/- imposed on the petitioner.
As nothing was done by the respondents on the said Representation dated 5th June, 2003 made by the petitioner, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned above.
Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition is being disposed of at this stage.
We have heard Shri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the record.
It is submitted by Shri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned Order dated 30th May, 2003 was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner were not correct, and had the opportunity of hearing been given to the petitioner, the petitioner would have established the said fact.
Shri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the averments made in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Writ Petition in this regard wherein it has, inter-alia, been averred that the impugned Order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The averments made in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Writ Petition have been replied to in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Counter Affidavit.
In the aforesaid paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Counter Affidavit, it has been asserted by the respondents that no opportunity was required to be given to the petitioner and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice.
Shri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the allegations against the petitioner were fully established from the documents on the record, and as such, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by not giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
As noted above, it has not been disputed by the respondents that opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner before passing the Order dated 30th May, 2003. Whether the allegations against the petitioner were correct or not and whether such allegations were established from the documents on record or not, could be decided only after calling for the version of the petitioner.
As no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, it was deprived of placing its version prior to the passing of the impugned Order dated 30th May, 2003 by the respondent no. 2.
In our view, there has been clear violation of the principles of natural justice in the present case. The impugned Order has resulted in civil consequences as against the petitioner, in-as-much as fine of Rs. 20,000/- has been imposed on the petitioner, and therefore, we are of the opinion that any action could be taken against the petitioner only after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and placing its version before the concerned authority.
It is well-settled that no order involving adverse civil consequences can be passed against any person without giving him an opportunity to be heard against the passing of such order and this rule of natural justice is applicable to quasi-judicial as well as administrative proceedings.
Reference in this regard may be made to the following decisions of the Supreme Court:
(1) Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, and others, (1978) 1 SCC 405 (Para 66) : AIR 1978 SC 851.
(2) S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan and others, (1980) 4 SCC 379: AIR 1981 SC 136 (Para 7).
(3) National Textile Workers' Union v. P.R. Ramakrishnan and others, (1983) 1 SCC 228 : AIR 1983 SC 75 (Paras 7 & 15).
(4) K.I. Shephard and others, etc, etc., v. Union of India and others, (1987) 4 SCC 431 : 1987 SCC (L & S) 438 : AIR 1988 SC 686 (Paras 12, 13, 15 & 16).
(5) State of Haryana v. Ram Kishan and others, (1988) 3 SCC 416 : AIR 1988 SC 1301 (Para 8).
(6) Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal & others, (1990) 2 SCC 746 : AIR 1990 SC 1402 (Paras 19, 22 & 23).
(7) Union of India & others v. E.G. Nambudiri, (1991) 3 SCC 38 : AIR 1991 SC 1216 (Para 7).
(8) Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co-education) Higher Secondary School and others, (1993) 4 SCC 10 : AIR 1993 SC 2155 (Para 9).
(9) Saij Gram Panchayat v. State of Gujarat and others, (1999) 2 SCC 366 : AIR 1999 SC 826 (Para 22).
(10) Canara Bank & others v. Debasis Das & others, (2003) 4 SCC 557 : AIR 2003 SC 2041 ( Paras 13, 14, 15 & 19).
(11) Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy, (2005) 6 SCC 321 : AIR 2005 SC 2090 (Paras 10 & 11).
(12) Rajesh Kumar & others v. CIT & others, (2007) 2 SCC 181 : AIR 2007 SC 181 ( Paras 24, 42, 43 & 47).
(13) Sahara India (Firm) (1) v. CIT, (2008) 14 SCC 151 (Paras 17, 19, 25, 26, 29 & 30): (2008) 300 ITR 403.
(14) Indu Bhushan Dwivedi v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 11 SCC 278 : AIR 2010 SC 2472 (Para 18).
In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the impugned Order dated 30th May, 2003 is manifestly illegal, and the same is liable to be quashed.
The Writ Petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed, and the same is accordingly allowed.
The Order dated 30th May, 2003 (Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition) is quashed.
It will, however, be open to the respondents to take appropriate action against the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the case of the petitioner on merits.
Order Date :- 21.12.2011 Ajeet