JUDGMENT

Paul, J. -- 1. This Intra Court appeal takes exception to the order of learned Single Judge dated 23rd May, 2022 passed in W.P. No. 12006/2022.

2. Draped in brevity, the admitted facts between the parties are that pursuant to advertisement issued by the then Town Improvement Trust (Trust), Chhatarpur in the year 1994, the appellants submitted their applications for allotment of shops and in turn, the shops in question were allotted to them.

3. As per the stand of appellants, they are in continuous possession of shops in question since the date of allotment and are regularly paying rent and charges as mentioned in the agreement / NIT. The rent was periodically increased and appellants continuously deposited the enhanced rent. The enhanced rent so deposited by the appellants was duly accepted by the authorities.

4. Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants submits that order dated 17.5.2022 (Annexure P-4) issued by respondent No.3 was called in question before the learned Single Judge. By taking this Court to the impugned order Annexure P-4, Shri Yadav submits that although in the last paragraph it is termed as ‘notice’ and responses of appellants were expected, a careful reading of the document dated 17.5.2022 (Annexure P-4) shows that on the basis of five alleged violations of conditions of agreement on the part of appellants, the respondents came to hold that allotment of petitioners / appellants shop became null and void automatically. Thus for violations of conditions of agreement the appellants were directed to handover the possession of vacant shops to the competent authority failing which ex-parte proceedings will be conducted against them for which appellants will be responsible.

5. The bone of contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that so far question of continuance and entitlement of appellants in the shops in question is concerned, the authorities without putting the appellants to notice already concluded that their allotments stood automatically cancelled.

6. The order dated 17.5.2022 (Annexure P-4) is termed as notice only for the purpose of evicting the shops within stipulated period. Thus, the order impugned is not a show-cause notice permitting the petitioners to putforth their defence as against five alleged violations of conditions mentioned in the order dated 17.5.2022.

7. The sheet anchor of the argument of the appellants before learned Single Judge was that impugned order dated 17.5.2022 (Annexure-P/4) is an adverse order and entails civil consequences and therefore, the principles of natural justice should have been followed. Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants urged that in support of his submission, the appellants placed reliance on two judgments of Supreme Court which were mentioned by learned Single Judge in the impugned order.

8. By taking this Court to the findings given by learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has not given any iota of finding as to why principles of natural justice are not applicable in a case of this nature. If opportunity would have been granted before passing the impugned order dated 17.5.2022, the petitioners would have been in a position to satisfy the authorities on all the five points mentioned in the impugned order dated 17.5.2022. In absence thereof, an adverse order will operate to the detriment of the appellants which will hit Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21, because its question of the life and livelihood of the appellants whose bread and butter is dependent on the said shops. Thus, the order passed by learned Single Judge is liable to be interfered with.

9. Shri Ankit Agrawal leaned Government Advocate opposed the same by contending that the violation of conditions mentioned in items No. 1 to 5 of the impugned order dated 17.5.2022 clearly shows that Conditions of main agreement were not satisfied by the appellants and therefore they are