IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1340 OF 2014 DATED: 29-10-2014 Between:
Ravuri Subba Rao … Appellant And Malakonda Rayudu and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1340 2014
JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
We admit the writ appeal.
On the consent of all the appearing parties in the writ proceedings, we take up this appeal for hearing finally, dispensing with all other formalities.
We are satisfied that by the judgment and order impugned, the appellant’s right has been seriously affected. It appears that during the pendency of the writ petition, the appellant got the licence and this fact of granting licence was also noted by the Hon’ble Trial Judge. It is contended by the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner/first respondent that this licence was granted in gross violation of the undertaking given by the learned Government Pleader before the Trial Judge as to grant of any licence.
The fact remains that some right has been created, rightly or wrongly, by awarding licence to the appellant. We are not adjudicating this issue. By the impugned judgment, his right is taken away without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. In other words, the appellant is condemned unheard. In our view, this is not permissible in our justice delivery system as it is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Even criminals or offenders must be heard in accordance with the due procedure established by law as guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned Trial Judge is kept in abeyance and should not be given effect to and we modify the impugned order to that of staying the operation of the licence. We remand the matter and restore the writ petition for hearing. The appellant before us is impleaded in the writ petition as a party-respondent who would be free to file a counter-affidavit within two weeks from date and an affidavit in reply, if any, may be filed by the parties to the writ petition, if so advised, within two weeks thereafter dealing with the counter-affidavit to be filed by the appellant. In default of filing of a counter- affidavit within the time stipulated by us, the writ petition will be heard without any counter-affidavit afresh without being influenced or swayed by earlier judgment. In the process, the Hon’ble Judge would be free to pass order either retaining the same or modifying or reversing as the situation will warrant. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 29-10-2014 Svv