The violation of natural justice in eviction proceedings invalidates administrative orders, highlighting the necessity of a fair hearing.

JUDGMENT :

Dhirai Singh Thakur, CJ.

1. The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 22.05.2025, passed in W.P.No.13868 of 2025.

2. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under:

A show cause notice dated 07.03.2025 followed by another notice, dated 01.05.2025, came to be issued against the petitioner - appellant herein requiring him to show cause as to why he be not evicted from the properties which were mentioned in the scheduled annexed to the said show cause notice.

The schedule of properties mentioned a land measuring Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.261/1 and Ac.2.38 cents in Sy.No.261/2 measuring a total of Ac.3.88 cents falling in Tirupati Urban Mandal and District.

The petitioner in the first round of litigation challenged the show cause notice, dated 07.03.2025 by way of W.P.No.6348 of 2025. The learned single Judge by virtue of the judgment and order, dated 12.03.2025, disposed of the petition with a direction to the petitioner to submit his explanation to the show cause notice with supporting documents which was then to be considered and appropriate orders passed within a period of three weeks therefrom.

In the second round of litigation, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.9848 of 2025 in which the petitioner sought suspension of the proceedings pending before the 4th respondent initiated pursuant to the show cause notice, dated 07.03.2025, inter alia on the ground that he would not be in a position to furnish an effective reply in the absence of certain documents which are required to be obtained from the respondents.

By virtue of an interim order, dated 08.05.2025, the learned single Judge granted liberty to the petitioner - appellant herein to approach the 4th respondent requesting supply of documents indicating the particulars and description of the said documents. It was also ordered that upon filing of such an application, the 4th respondent would pass appropriate orders on the said application.

It appears that an application was filed by the petitioner on 09.05.2025 which came to be rejected on 15.05.2025.

It is not out of place here to mention that in his application filed with the respondent, the petitioner had sought certain documents which, according to the 4th respondent, were not required to be furnished as according to the 4th respondent they were unrelated to the individual claim of the petitioner. The authority also held that the burden of proving the right and title or lawful possession by way of documentary evidence rests only on the applicant. In the meantime, the authority appears to have passed a final order on 16.05.2025 on the proceedings initiated pursuant to the issuance of the show cause notice directing the eviction of the petitioner. The hearing on the proceedings is stated to have been held on 09.05.2025.

The petitioner being aggrieved of the said order challenged the same before a learned single Judge of this Court by way of W.P.No. 13868 of 2025 on the ground that no hearing at all had taken place on 09.05.2025 before the 4th respondent and the order impugned had been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

The petitioner also alleged that the case of the petitioner had been prejudiced on account of non furnishing of the documents which were sought for from the 4th respondent.

The learned single Judge, however, disposed of the petition by virtue of judgment and order, dated 22.05.2025, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Endowments Tribunal by way of an appeal under Section 86 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, which was the alternative remedy available to the petitioner.

Being aggrieved of the said judgment and order, the present writ appeal has been preferred.

3. Mr. C. V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, states that the learned single Judge ought to have exercised the writ jurisdiction inasmuch as this was a clear case of gross violation of principles of nat