IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for adherence to the principles of natural justice before passing any adverse orders by the authorities.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. All these writ petitions being analogous, which have put to challenge an order dated 19-12-2019, passed by the learned Upa Lokayukta, Nagaland, followed by an order dated 17-09-2020, passed by the concerned Public Works Department, these are taken up for analogous hearing and are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. Before going to the issue which has arisen for determination, it would be convenient to narrate the facts of the case. However, since the challenge is structured mainly on the point of law, this Court may not be required to record the facts in detail of each of the cases.

3. The petitioners in these cases are the beneficiaries of certain actions of the Public Works Department pertaining to certain quarters in the area commonly known as PWD colony in Dimapur. It is the contention of the petitioners that the quarters were constructed long back in the year 1968-1969 and were in a dilapidated condition. Under those circumstances, the Department had taken a conscious decision for dismantling the buildings. Accordingly, the salvaged materials were put to auction in which the petitioners were the auction purchasers. The consideration paid to the Department has also been demonstrated by way of necessary receipts. In some petitions, the petitioners were also allotted the land on which the quarter stood where they claim to have made constructions and are residing there with their families.

4. However, pertaining to a vigilance case which was instituted in the year 2013, which culminated in an order of acquittal of the existing officer, the Upa Lokayukta had passed an order dated 19-12-2019 making certain directions for cancellation of the aforesaid orders followed by the order dated 17-09-2020 of the Department of such cancellation. It is contended that both the aforesaid orders were passed without giving the petitioners any opportunity of hearing.

5. I have heard Mr. Imti Longjem, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi, learned State counsel whereas Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned counsel has appeared for the Lokayukta.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the decision to dispose of salvaged materials and also for allotment of the land after such demolition was taken by the Department by following the due process of law. Reference has been made to an Inspection Report dated 03-11-2011 by the Department whereby no objection was conveyed for public auction. Pursuant to the same, a direction was issued on 04-11-2011 for disposal of the salvaged materials by the Executive Engineer to the SDO, PWD. Consequent thereto, the salvaged materials were put to auction which were purchased by the petitioners by making the necessary deposit. The learned counsel has also referred to an order dated 05-11-2011 to write off the materials. So far as the land after the demolition of the quarter, the same was also allotted to some of the petitioners where, as indicated above construction has been made and the said petitioners are residing there with their families.

7. The learned counsel has referred to a complaint dated 24-09-2013 by the Works and Housing Department leading to registration of a vigilance case. Consequently, a criminal case being RC-02/2013 was registered before the Special Judge. After trial, however, by judgment and order dated 30-01-2019, the existing Executive Engineer was acquitted and so far as the other accused was concerned namely the SDO, he had passed away during the proceedings. It is highlighted that none of the petitioners or their spouse who were government servants were made accused in the said criminal case. It is submitted that upon passing of the aforesaid judgment dated 30-01-2019, the proceeding initiated had culminated as there was no further appeal. However, the Upa Lokayukta vide order dated 19-12-2019 had re-opened the matter and had passed directions for cancellation of the dismantling order and also the orders