A.R Tiwari, J.:— The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the undernoted relief:
“It is, therefore, prayed that orders, annexures “I” and “J”, passed by the respondents be quashed by raising a writ of certiorari and a writ of mandamus be issued against respondent No. 2 that he should not act upon the order of cancellation and any other appropriate writ, direction or order be passed and the petition be allowed with costs.”
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 claimed to be a trade union to represent all the members in employment. Petitioner No. 2 is the Pradhan Mantri of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 was registered under Section 8 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, as a trade union, vide order dated July 3, 1986 (annexure “A”). On July 29, 1986, respondent No. 2, Registrar of Trade Unions, issued a notice under Section 10-B of the Trade Unions Act to the Petitioners union to show cause why the registration be not cancelled (annexure “B”). The ground was that the union was not legally constituted. On September 1, 1986, the union filed the reply denying the charges and moved application for inspection of the documents (annexures “C” and “D”). Affidavits of some of the members were filed (annexures “E”, “F” and “G”). Respondent No. 2 granted seven days' time for inspection of the documents on September 3, 1986 (annexure “H”). Respondent No. 2 without hearing the petitioners and without waiting till the period, as allowed, passed the order on September 4, 1986 (annexure “I”). The petitioners union filed the appeal under Section 11 of the Trade Unions Act against this order dated September 4, 1986, which was registered as Appeal No. 9.ITU of 1996. The appeal was dismissed on March 19, 1987 (annexure- “J”). Annexures “I” and “J” are challenged in this writ petition. By order dated March 31, 1987, the operation of annexures “I” and “J” were stayed.
3. I have heard Shri S.S Samvatsar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Surjeet Singh, learned Government Advocate for the respondents, and Shri S.R Kochatta, learned counsel for the intervener.
4. Shri Samvatsar submitted before me that opportunity of inspection was granted, vide order dated September 3, 1986 (annexure “H”). The authority had also directed to file the affidavit. While the period of seven days' was not over, the authority chose to pass an adverse order on the next date itself, i.e, on September 4, 1986 (annexure “I”). The appeal also failed (annexure “J”). Counsel submitted that the order dated September 4, 1986, is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and that the upholding of the order by the appellate authority has not the effect of validating the initial invalidity.
5. In National Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar,1 it is held that “It is well-settled that no adverse orders can be passed against a party without giving it opportunity to place its case.”
6. The rule of audi alteram partem is required to be followed. This principle indicates that the other side should be heard. Lord Russell has said that:
“It is to be implied unless the contrary appears that Parliament does not authorise by the Act the exercise of the powers in breach of the principles of natural justice, and that Parliament does by the Act require, in the particular procedures, compliance with those principles.”
7. Counsel for the respondents and the intervener are unable to explain as to how the order was passed on September 4, 1986, in the face of the letter dated September 3, 1986. This is a case of manifest infirmity and illegality which makes the order worthy of being demolished by the writ court.
8. The impugnment in a writ court relates not to the decision but to the decisionmaking process. Here, the decision-making process is violative of the principles of natural justice. There is, thus, no escape from the conclusion that the order dated September 4, 1986 (annexure “I”) deserves to be demolished on the ground of this infirmity. Consequently, the appellate order (annexure “J”) also deserves to be demolished as it failed to take into account the aforesaid evident illegality. In the result, I allow this petition and direct as under:
(a) The order cancelling registration (annexure “I”) passed by the Registrar of Trade Unions as also the appellate order (annexure “J”) passed by the appellate authority are quashed.
(b) The Registrar of Trade Unions is granted liberty to grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass appropriate order consonant with the principles of natural justice without unnecessary delay.
(c) Any party suffering adverse order at the hands of the Registrar shall be at liberty to resort to appropriate remedy thereafter.
9. The petition is, thus, allowed in terms indicated above but with no order as to costs. Security cost, if deposited, shall be refunded to the petitioners after due verification.
10. Petition Allowed.