JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Amit Saxena learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Komal Mehrotra learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Manish Goyal learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Apoorva Hajela learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Sri Anurag Khanna learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Veerendra Kumar Shukla learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Sri Navin Sinha learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Raghav Dwivedi learned counsel for respondent No. 4. Ms. Rekha Singh learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Sanjay Kumar Gupta appeared for the respondent bank. Sri Utkarsh Singh learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-C No. 27814 of 2022 has adopted the arguments of Sri Amit Saxena learned Senior Counsel on the issue of providing opportunity of hearing at the stage of the decision by CMM/DM under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act' 2002. Learned counsels for the petitioners in other connected writ petitions have also adopted the arguments of the learned Senior Counsels for the petitioners.

2. The common dispute raised in all the connected writ petitions is about the validity of the order passed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "SARFAESI Act, 2002”) by the authorized officer namely the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Ghaziabad, Meerut Commissionerate and the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Varanasi, on the ground that no notice or opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioners herein who are the borrowers and, thus, the orders impugned suffer from violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. In Writ-C No. 22594 of 2022 (Shipra Hotels Limited and another vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), an issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the Additional District Magistrate (F.&R.), Ghaziabad has also been raised to pass such order beyond the period of 60 days prescribed in the 3rd proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

4. The main prayer of the petitioners, thus, is that a declaration that natural justice as implied mandatory requirement, should be read into Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, be made by this Court.

5. It is argued by Sri Amit Saxena learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Komal Mehrotra learned counsel for the petitioners in the leading writ petition that it is well known principle of law that if a statute does not exclude compliance with the principles of natural justice either expressly or by necessarily implication, compliance with natural justice has to be read into the statute. The fundamental principles of natural justice, including audi altrum paltrum have been insisted by the Courts to bring procedural fairness into a decision and infraction thereof has lead to quashing of such decisions.

It is argued that the applicability of principles of natural justice is not dependent upon any statutory provision. The principle has to be mandatorily applied irrespective of the fact as to whether there is any such statutory provision or not.

Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Dharampal Satyapal Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others, (2015) 8 SCC 519 to assert that where a statute authorises interference with properties or other rights and is silent on the question of hearing, the Courts would apply rule of universal application founded on plainest principles of natural justice. [Reference De Smith {Judicial Review of Administrative Action (1980), at page 161}]

It is argued that the fundamental principle of administrative law in Wade [Administrative Law (1977), at page 395] emphasizes that principles of natural justice operate as implied mandatory requirements, non-observance of which invalidates the exercise of power.

In A. K. Kraipak and others vs. Union of India and o