Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Hydrocon Engineers - Appellant
Versus
Delhi Jal Board & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 13172 of 2021, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 41558-41561 of 2021
Decided On : 23-11-2021
Letter - Response to Impugned Letter - The court extended the time for the petitioner to respond to the impugned letter and directed the respondent to pass a speaking order after considering the petitioner's response to both the show cause notice and the impugned letter.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenges a letter requiring a response, while no decision has been communicated on an earlier show cause notice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petition to be premature but extended the time for the petitioner to respond to the impugned letter. The respondent was directed to pass a speaking order after considering the petitioner's responses.
Issues: Prematurity of the petition and the requirement for the petitioner to respond to the impugned letter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court extended the time for the petitioner to respond and directed the respondent to pass a speaking order after considering the petitioner's responses.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with the extension of time for the petitioner to respond and the direction for the respondent to pass a speaking order after considering the petitioner's responses.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. - Petitioner impugns letter dated 15.11.2021, whereby petitioner has been required to submit his reply/clarification to the said letter failing which it is stated that appropriate action in accordance with the terms and conditions of contract agreement and work order shall be taken.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that earlier also a show cause notice dated 30.07.2021 was issued which was duly replied to on 05.08.2021 and the same was even followed by a legal notice dated 10.08.2021. He submits that till date no decision on the said show cause notice has been communicated. On the other hand, subject impugned notice has been received, alleging the same grounds.
3. Issue Notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel for the Respondent. With the consent of parties, petition is taken up for final disposal today itself.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that no final order has yet been passed on the earlier show cause notice dated 30.07.2021.
5. Since petitioner is only impugning a letter calling for his response, the petition is pre-mature, however, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, time given to the petitioner to respond to the impugned letter dated 15.11.2021, is extended by a further period of one week from today.
6. Petitioner shall file his response to letter dated 15.11.2021 within one week from today. On the response being filed, respondent shall proceed further in accordance with law and pass a speaking order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and after taking into account the response given to the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 30.07.2021 and the response to be given by the petitioner to the subject impugned letter dated 15.11.2021.
7. Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. All rights and contentions of parties are reserved.
8. It is further directed that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in case an adverse order is passed, implementation of the same shall be deferred by a period of one week from the date of communication of the order.
9. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
The court has the discretion to extend the time for response and can direct the respondent to pass a speaking order after considering the petitioner's responses.
Administrative notices require responses and no adverse action may be taken without providing the opportunity to respond, reflecting principles of natural justice.
The judgment emphasizes the right to a fair hearing and requires that all parties involved in proceedings be given proper notice and opportunity to respond to representations and notices issued by au....
Principles of natural justice must be complied with, including considering the petitioner's reply and providing an opportunity for a personal hearing before passing a demolition order.
The court ruled that procedural fairness requires the opportunity to respond and be heard before any decision on a show cause notice.
The court emphasized that principles of natural justice necessitate consideration of replies to show cause notices prior to taking administrative action.
The grounds for termination must be properly communicated, and the petitioner's response must be considered before passing a termination order.
Mandamus directing expeditious finalization of disciplinary suspension proceedings post-hearing.
Administrative decisions must be based on communicated grounds and consider responses to show cause notices for fairness.
Proper Officer must consider the reply on merits and provide opportunity for clarification or further documents/details before creating demand ex-parte.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
