Natural justice principles require that parties affected by administrative actions be given the opportunity to be heard; failure to do so renders such actions arbitrary and unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

(ALOK KUMAR PANDEY, J.)

In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

1. That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ/ writ(s) or order/order(s) and/ or direction for the following relief/reliefs.

A. To set aside the order dated 08.12.2020 passed by the Collector, Kishanganj in Bandobasti Parcha Cancellation Case No. 55/2018-19 whereby and whereunder the Parcha issued under the Land Settlement Case No. 91/1966-67 in the name of Badri Baski (the father of the petitioner) has been cancelled illegally without any notice and against dead person (Badri Baski).

B. That the petitioner's possession over the land in question (5 Acres 12 decimals, the settled land) be not disturbed till disposal of the present application.

C. To pass such other order/orders or direction as may deem fit and proper to secure the ends of justice.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that land in question mentioned in para 4 which is Plot No. 1515 under Khata No. 94, Area-5.64 acres situated within Mauza-Khagda under Thana No. 57, ward No. 6 was settled in the name of father of the petitioner in the year 1966-67. It has been submitted that father of the petitioner died on 15.12.1996 as is evident from the Death Certificate annexed as Annexure-P/2 and in the Bandobasti Parcha Cancellation Case No. 55/2018-19 filed by State against the petitioner’s father and other, notice has been issued to father of the petitioner who has already died. In this way, Notice is merely a formality as father of the petitioner has died earlier and petitioner has not been heard. Thereby, petitioner has been deprived of his right of hearing. In this way, the order dated 08.12.2020 passed by the Collector, Kishanganj in Bandobasti Parcha Cancellation Case No. 55/2018-19 is liable to be set aside.

3. Learned counsel on behalf of the State submits that petitioner is not a party as his father is party and other person to whom he has sold the land in question. He has also admitted that though notice has been served but notice has not been given to the petitioner because he is not a party to the said proceeding.

4. The moot question which has been raised by counsel of the petitioner is that petitioner has not been heard. It is clarified from the title of the proceeding that petitioner is not a party and his father has already died and right of hearing must not be an empty formality. If any order has been passed against any person by the which the person is aggrieved, he must be heard.

5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 in para 15, held as under:-

15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has held that principle of natural justice is equally applicable in quasi-judicial function as well as administrative function to arrive at just decision and it is difficult t