Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 4378
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
R.S. GUPTA - Petitioner
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 8156 of 2016
Decided On : 14-12-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ranjan Roy, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Saurabh Chadda, Adv. with Mr. Ajay Kumar, LA, DOE.
The court emphasized the fundamental principle of providing an opportunity for a hearing before making a decision, and set aside the impugned order solely on the ground of the petitioner's inability to attend the hearing due to the accident.
Headnote:
Absence - Appeal - Opportunity of Hearing
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was unable to attend a hearing due to a road traffic accident, and the appeal was disposed of in the petitioner's absence. The petitioner sought recall of the order, but the request was not granted.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to its original number, directing the Commission to list the matter for a new hearing and dispose of the appeal in accordance with the law. The court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the impugned order and set it aside solely due to the petitioner's inability to attend the hearing.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's absence from the hearing and the subsequent disposal of the appeal in the petitioner's absence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of providing the petitioner with an opportunity for a hearing before the Commission and set aside the impugned order solely on the ground of the petitioner's inability to attend the hearing due to the accident.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, restoring the appeal to its original number on the file of the Central Information Commission.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 01.08.2016. It is contended that the appeal of the petitioner has been disposed of by the impugned order in the absence of the petitioner.
2. It is contended that the appeal of the petitioner was listed on 29.07.2016. On the morning of 29.07.2016, the petitioner who was travelling by his motorcycle met with a road traffic accident. Because of heavy rain on the previous night, the motorbike of the petitioner slipped and the petitioner sustained injuries on his shoulder. The petitioner was advised bed rest.
3. It is contended that the petitioner could not appear before the Commission on account of the fact that he met with the accident while he was on his way to attend the hearing. The petitioner thereafter approached the Commission for recall of the order. However, the request was not acceded to. The petitioner has also annexed a copy of the medical certificate.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, with regard to the absence of the petitioner from the hearing on 29.07.2016, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the same is a matter of record and he would not be in a position to controvert the contention of the petitioner.
5. The impugned order dated 01.08.2016 consequent upon hearing on 29.07.2016, no doubt is a detailed order, however, the same has been passed without hearing the petitioner who was the appellant.
6. The petitioner has explained the reasons for his absence from the hearing on 29.07.2016. Without commenting on merits of the order, it is deemed appropriate that the petitioner be given an opportunity of hearing before the Commission.
7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 01.08.2016 passed consequent to the hearing on 29.07.2016 is set aside. The appeal is restored to its original number on the file of Central Information Commission. The Commission is directed to list the matter for hearing on a date appropriate to the Commission, with due intimate the parties, and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.
8. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the merits of the impugned order and the said order has been set aside solely on the ground that the petitioner could not attend the hearing on 29.07.2016 on account of his accident and the order has been passed in his absence.
9. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.
