IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of natural justice, particularly the 'audi alteram partem' rule, in administrative actions and the duty to act fairly to prevent arbitrary exercise of power.

ORDER ON BOARD :

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

“10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ(s), order(s), by quashing the impugned order dated 03.04.2018 (Annexure P/1) and letter dated 13.09.2017 the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to run the Madarsha (School) as per the C.G. Madarsha Board Adhiniyam 1998 (with necessary amendement incorporated in the year 2007).

10.2. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record from the respondent authorities.

10.3. Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”

2. The facts of the present case are as follows:-

A. The petitioner was a Madarsa (hereinafter referred to as ‘the institute’) registered in the year 2006 according to the provisions of Chhattisgarh Madarsa Board Adhiniyam, 1998 (for short, the Act, 1998).

B. The institute could not renew its registration; therefore, again it got registered according to the amended provisions of the Chhattisgarh Madarsa Board (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2007 (for short, the Act, 2007) on 18.01.2013 bearing registration No. 770092.

C. The institute was registered/recognized according to Section 8 (2) (a) of the Act, 1998, imparting school education to girls up to the age of 14.

D. On 21.08.2017, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kanker [for short, the SDO(R)] visited the institute and found certain deficiencies. A report was prepared by the SDO(R) observing that no warden was appointed in the institute; there were no adequate toilets and no medical facilities (first aid medical facilities); girls more than 14 years of age were granted admission; most of the students are not from the State of Chhattisgarh; without permission, boarding facilities are granted to many students, and such report was submitted before the Collector on 21.07.2017.

E. Pursuant to that, the Collector, North Bastar-Kanker sent a letter along with a report to the Madarsa Board on 02.08.2017 to take appropriate action.

F. The Chhattisgarh Madarsa Board, Raipur (for short, the Board) vide order dated 13.09.2017 cancelled the registration and recognition of the institute.

G. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 14 of the Act, 1998 on 28.10.2017 before the State Government against the order dated 13.09.2017 taking the sole ground that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before taking the penal decision and the same was dismissed by respondent No. 1 on 03.04.2018 on the ground that no averments were made in the appeal with regard to the merits of the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the only ground raised by the petitioner before the appellate authority was that no opportunity of hearing was afforded before taking stern action against the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner/institute was running Madarsa (educational institute) and at that point in time, there were 55 girls students enrolled, and on the date of inspection, 47 girls were found present. He would also submit that though in the Act, 2007, there is no specific provision regarding affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned person/institute, it would be construed as the principles of natural justice embodied in the Act, 2007 itself. He would contend that before taking any action against the petitioner a notice ought to have been issued to the petitioner and opportunity ought to have been afforded to the petitioner to defend its matter. In support of his contention, reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Sahara India (firm), Lucknow v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I and another, (2008) 14 SCC 151 (para- 15); and, Canara Bank and others v. Debasis Das and others, (2003) 4 SCC 557.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that ther