Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.
Hon'ble Mahendra Dayal, J.
Heard Shri R.B.S Rathaur, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the orders dated 13.4.2006 and 3.2.2006, passed by the opposite party no. 1 as contained in annexures 1 and 5, respectively, to the writ petition.
It has been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner is an unemployed person and looks after an agricultural land which is recorded in the name of the petitioner's father-in-law. The husband of the petitioner are three brothers and the land owned by the father-in-law of the petitioner is nearly 4 Bighas and the produce from the land is not enough for the survival of the family. A post of Aanganbari worker fell vacant in village Ghoori Teekar and the same was advertised. The primerly eligibility criteria for the post is that a person should belong to below the poverty line. As the petitioner comes within the said category of (BPL), she applied and was selected for the post of Angabari worker in the meeting held at Block Taarun, the opposite party no. 2 became very restless, and as such he manipulated the things and got the petitioner's income certificate cancelled vide order dated 3.2.2006
Being aggrieved by the order of cancellation of income certificate, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1142 of 2006 (M/B), which was disposed of on 20.2.2006 with the direction to the opposite party no. 1 to decide the petitioner's representation. Petitioner served the copy of the order dated 20.2.2006 upon the opposite party no. 1, but the representation of the petitioner was rejected in the same manner on which the income certificate dated 3.2.2006 was cancelled. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition inter alia on the ground that impugned orders have been passed in utter disregard of the provisions of the natural justice as the report of the Revenue Inspector and Lekhpal, on which reliance has been placed, copy thereof was not furnished to the petitioner causing serious prejudice.
It has been submitted that petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing nor any notice was issued to her and as such the impugned order dated 13.4.2006 has been passed in utter violation of the principles of natural justice.
In support of this argument that the copy of the report on which reliance is placed by an authority should be furnished to a person against whom order is passed, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Mahatma Gandhi Upbhokta Sahkari Samiti v. State of U.P [2001 (19) LCD 513].
Refuting the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel submits that furnishing a copy of the report is not at all necessary and it will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. He submitted that there is no provision to provide the copy of the inquiry report and as such, the copy of the inquiry report was not given to the petitioner before cancelling her income certificate.
In Mahatma Gandhi Upbhokta Sahkari Samiti v. State of U.P [2001 (19) LCD 513] on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the controversy was that the cancellation order was passed on the basis of inquiry conducted by Sub-Divisional Magistrate but the copy of the inquiry report on which reliance was placed was not furnished to the petitioner. A Division Bench of this Court comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K Sen (the then Chief Justice) and Hon'ble Jagdish Bhalla, J. (as he then was) held that when report of inquiry has been relied upon by the disciplinary authority, the copy of the same has to be furnished to the person who is effected by the same. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the impugned order suffers from the violation of the Principle of Natural Justice.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases has reiterated that a person who is put to any harm, he shall first be afforded adequate opportunity of showing cause. In D.K Yadav v. J.M.A Industries Ltd..; (1993) 3 SCC 259 the Supreme Court while laying emphasis on affording opportunity by the authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action held that orders affecting the civil rights or resulting civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court concluded as under:-
“The procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood would be liable to be tested on the anvil of Article 14. The procedure prescribed by a statute or statutory rule or rules or orders affecting the civil rights or result in civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. Article 14 has a pervasive procedural potency and versatile quality, equalitarian in its soul and principles of natural justice are part of Article 14 and the procedure prescribed by law must be just, fair and reasonable, and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.”
In National Building Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan; (1998) 7 SCC 66, it was observed by the Apex Court that a person is entitled to judicial review, if he is able to show that the decision of the public authority affected him of some benefit or advantage which in the past he had been permitted to enjoy and which he legitimately expected to be permitted to continue to enjoy either until he is informed the reasons for withdrawal and the opportunity to comment on such reasons.
In the instant case, it is an admitted case of the respondents that the copy of the report on which reliance was placed, was not furnished to the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order of cancellation suffers from the legal infirmities and has been passed in blatant disregard of the provisions of the natural justice. It is the definite case of the petitioner that before passing the order cancelling the Income Certificate, no show cause notice or opportunity of any sort was given to the petitioner.
For the reasons aforesaid, the order of cancellation of income certificate as well as the order passed on representation are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 3.2.2006 and 13.4.2006 are set-aside. Respondents shall act accordingly.
The writ petition is allowed. Costs easy.
Order Date:- 29.8.2014
Muk