Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3 All] C/M, Lok Bharti Inter College and another V. State of U.P. and others 993
4. Sri Srivastava contends that after
having received the contention on behalf
of the petitioner the District inspector of
Schools vide order dated 2.9.2009 called
upon the respondent no.4 to submit his
reply which was submitted and which has
been considered in detail while passing
the impugned order. The error committed
by the District Inspector of Schools is that
inspite of a written request made, the said
reply of the respondent no.4 had never
been made available to the petitioner and
in the absence of any knowledge of the
contents of such objection, the petitioner
had absolutely no occasion to submit a
reply to the same.
5. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, this Court does not find any
recital in the order dated 13.10.2009 that
the petitioner was ever made aware about
the reply submitted by the respondent
no.4 and the objections taken therein. This
was necessary as the reply submitted by
the respondent no.4 has been accepted by
the District inspector of Schools and has
also been made the basis of passing of the
impugned order. Learned counsel for the
respondents have also not been able to
point out any such material or recital to
that effect.
6. In the opinion of the Court nonsupply
of the said document to the
petitioner inspite of repeated demands
violates the principles of natural justice
and the Court is supported in its opinion
by the Division Bench in the case Rayeen
Fruits Co. and others Vs. State of U.P.
and others reported in 2000 RD 440 and
M/s Nagarjuna Constructions Co. Vs.
Govt. of A.P. and others reported in
2008(12) JT 371 Paragraph 30. On
account of non-supply of the objection
filed by the respondent no.4 the cause of
the petitioner has been prejudiced and
therefore, the order impugned dated
13.10.2009 is un-sustainable.
7. For the reasons stated herein
above the order dated 13.10.2009 is set
aside and a direction is issued to the
respondent no.3 to proceed to pass a fresh
order after giving opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner committee of
management to rebut the response
submitted by the respondent no.4 as
expeditiously as possibly preferably
within a period of four weeks from the
date of production of a certified copy of
this order before him.
The writ petition is allowed. No
order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED ALLAHABAD: 19:08:2009.
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE A.P. SAHI J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3268 of 2006
Sanskrit Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd.
…Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others …Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S. Niranjan,
Sri. Dharam Pal Singh
Sri Vinod Kumar Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ramesh Upadhyaya
Sri Ajit Kumar Singh
Sri M.C. Tripathi
S.C.
Constitution of India Art.-226-
Expungtion of long term entry in favour
of petitioner-without notice opportunity-