The doctrine of natural justice mandates that decision-making authorities must provide a personal hearing before making adverse decisions, ensuring fairness in administrative processes.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. Heard Shri R. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. M. Barman, learned State Counsel, Assam. Also heard Shri B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Agriculture Department; Shri S. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Pollution Control Board (PCB); Shri D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department and Shri B.P. Borah, learned counsel for the respondent no. 12.

2. The petitioners have put to challenge an order dated 19.12.2024 issued by the District Commissioner, Morigaon whereby the NOC dated 02.09.2011 for establishment of a brick kiln by the respondent no. 12 has been restored.

3. There is a chequered history, including history of litigations on the aforesaid issue of establishment of the brick kiln in questions.

4. Though various points have been canvassed on behalf of the petitioners which are also refuted by the learned counsel for the respondents, more particularly, the respondent no. 12, one of the points of argument advanced is that while the aforesaid impugned order dated 19.12.2024 has been passed by the District Commissioner, Morigaon, the hearing was not conducted by him but by the Addl. District Commissioner, Morigaon.

5. This Court has carefully perused the impugned order vis-a-vis the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by this Court in the last round of litigation i.e. WP(C)/1942/2024. In the said order, the following directions were given:

“13. Taking into account the above, this Court disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions:-

(i) The Pollution Control Board of Assam is directed to submit a fresh report as regards the respondent No.12 Brick Kiln within a period of 4 (four) weeks from today and not later than 23.10.2024 before the District Commissioner, Morigaon.

(ii) The District Agricultural Officer is also directed to submit a fresh report to the District Commissioner, Morigaon in respect to the land wherein the respondent No.12’s Brick Kiln is established within 23.10.2024.

(iii) It is also seen from the impugned order dated 19.02.2024 that the reports of the Circle Officer, Morigaon Revenue Circle as well as the Divisional Forest Officer, Nagaon Division have already been submitted, and as such, there would be no further necessity of submission of any further report(s).

(iv) This Court directs that upon receipt of the said reports as above mentioned the District Commissioner, Morigaon shall fix a date for hearing the petitioners and the respondent No.12. This Court directs that the petitioners and the respondent No.12 be heard before issuing any order. The District Commissioner, Morigaon, if deems necessary may call the concerned officials for arriving at a decision. The entire exercise be completed within 4 (four) weeks from 23.10.2024.”

6. From the aforesaid directions, it appears that amongst other aspects, the District Commissioner, Morigaon was directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the respondent no. 12. There is a specific averment in paragraph 38 of the writ petition that the hearing was done by the Addl. District Commissioner, Morigaon and not by the District Commissioner, Morigaon whereas the impugned order has been passed by the District Commissioner, Morigaon. There is no rebuttal of the aforesaid pleadings. To the contrary, as per the writ instructions dated 08.04.2025 issued by the concerned District Commissioner to the learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam, the said position has been accepted with the only justification that the hearing was done on 25.11.2024 by the Addl. District Commissioner (Revenue) as per the instructions and aut