The principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard, are fundamental to a just decision-making process and must be followed in quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings involving civil consequences, even in the absence of an express statutory requirement.

G.S.Singhvi, J.

1. These petitions are being decided by a common order because the issues raised therein are inter related.

2. The facts which are common to both the cases are that land measuring 23,480 square yards purchased by the petitioner-Society in 1970 in village Taraf Burrah, Tehsil and District Ludhiana was included in "Model Town Part II Extension Scheme" framed by Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, (hereinafter described as the Trust). However, vide resolution No. 24, dated 28.11.1972, the land belonging to the petitioners and 14 other co-operative societies were exempted from acquisition. Lateron, the scheme was abandoned by the Trust. In the year 1974, a new scheme was framed which was duly sanctioned by the State Government. The land of the petitioner and other cooperative societies were again included in the newly framed scheme. They approached the government for grant of exemption. Vide resolution dated 31.10.1974, the Trust recommended for grant of exemption to the land of the co-operative societies. These recommendations were partially accepted by the government and order dated 16.7.1976 was issued granting exemption to five co-operative societies. Since, the petitioner was not one among them, it filed C.W.P. No. 3228 of 1991 and challenged the governments decision on the ground of discrimination. The High Court accepted the contention of the petitioner but declined to nullify the scheme as a whole because of long lapse of time. Instead, it directed the trust and the State Government to give plots to the eligible members of the society who were desirous of having houses in the area. The Court also observed that if the number of plots available was less than the eligible person, then the allotment be made by draw of lots. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1328 of 1991 filed by the Trust was dismissed by the Division Bench on 28.10.1991.

3. With a view to implement the directions given by the High Court, the Chairman of the Trust wrote letters Annexures P-1 to P-3 requiring the Society to furnish the authenticated list of eligible persons along with their affidavits. Thereafter, draw of lots for allotment of available plots was held on 27.2.1992 and 40 members of the petitioner-society who were successful in the draw were allotted plots. Two members of the Society, namely, Shri Sharad Kumar and Shri P.C. Mahajan, challenged the draw of lots held on 27.2.1992 by filing C.W.P. Nos. 9725 and 13653 of 1993 which were disposed of by the High Court on 9.5.1994 in view of the statement made by the counsel for the Trust that their cases for allotment of plots by draw of lots will be considered at the next draw. The High Court also took notice of the statement made by the counsel for the society that the list of its remaining members will be supplied to the Trust within one month. Thereafter, the President of the society forwarded a list of its remaining members to the Chairman of the Trust along with its letter dated 22.6.1994. Fresh draw of lots was held on 15.7.1995 and 43 members of the Society were declared eligible for allotment of plots. To this effect, communication dated 21.7.1995 was sent by the chairman of the Trust to the President of the petitioner-society. In compliance of the conditions incorporated in that letter, the petitioner deposited the required amount with the Trust. However, as the Trust did not give possession of the plots to the 43 members of the society. The petitioner served legal notices upon the Trust and the government requiring them to hand over possession of the plots to the members of the society but failed to get any response. Ultimately, it instituted C.W.P. No. 156943 of 1996 for issuance of a mandamus directing the respondents to hand over the possession of 43 plots to its members.

4. In response to the notice of motion, issued by the Court on 14.10.1996, the respondent-Trust filed written statement dated 8.4.1997 and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous on the ground