Natural justice principles require a fair hearing before any order with civil consequences is made, as established in several Supreme Court decisions.

JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. With the consent of both sides, the main petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 29.10.2023 (Annexure P-4) whereby allocation of paddy to the petitioner has been cancelled and order dated 03.11.2023 (Annexure P-5) whereby already stored paddy is ordered to be shifted.

3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of milling rice. The petitioner was allocated paddy in terms of Custom Milling Policy 2023-2024. The officials of respondent conducted surprise visit at the premises of the petitioners and found 1780 quintals excess material. On the basis of report of inspecting team, District Allotment Committee by impugned order has cancelled allotment of paddy to the petitioner and further blacklisted for 3 years. Consequent to order passed by District Allotment Committee, Director Food Civil Supplies & Consumers Affairs Department of Punjab by order dated 03.11.2023 has directed the petitioner to shift already stored quantity to other mills.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that impugned order has been passed without issuing show cause notice and granting opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner was not associated while conducting physical examination, thus, entire exercise was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice.

5. On being asked whether impugned order was passed after issuing show cause notice followed by opportunity of personal hearing, learned State counsel expressed his inability to controvert contention of the petitioner that neither show cause notice was issued nor opportunity of personal hearing was granted prior to passing impugned order.

6. The petitioner has remedy to file appeal before Appellate Authority, however, he has chosen to approach this Court on the ground that impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. It is settled proposition of law that writ petition is maintainable against an order passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

7. I have heard the arguments of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

8. A five Judge Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Olga Tellis and Others Versus Bombay Municipal Corporation; (1985) 3 SCC 545 has considered question of opportunity of personal hearing and held that no order can be passed without granting an opportunity of personal hearing. It has been further held that opportunity of personal hearing cannot be denied merely on the ground that there was no prejudice to the aggrieved person. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as:-

“48. Any discussion of this topic would be incomplete without reference to an important decision of this Court in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan [(1980) 4 SCC 379, 395. In that case, the supersession of the New Delhi Municipal Committee was challenged on the ground that it was in violation of the principles of natural justice since, no show cause notice was issued before the order of supersession was passed. Linked with that question was the question whether the failure to observe the principles of natural justice matters at all, if such observance would have made no difference, the admitted or indisputable facts speaking for themselves. After referring to the decisionin Ridge v. Baldwin [(1964) AC40,68; John v. Rees [1970 Ch345, 402]; Annamunthodo v. Oilfields Workers' Trade Union [(1961) 3 All ER 621, 625 (HL)]; Margarita Fuentes et al v. Tobert L. Shevin [32 L Ed 2d 556, 574] ; Chintapalli Agency Taluk Arrack Sales Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Secretary (Food and Agriculture) Government of A.P. [(1977) 4 SCC 337, 341, 343-44 : (1978) 1 SCR 563, 567, 569-70] and to an interesting discussion of the subject in Jackson's Natural Justice (1980 Edn.), the Court, speaking through one of us, Chinnappa Reddy, J. said: (SCC p. 395, para 24) Union [(1961