1. The petitioner, an advocate by profession, is a resident of Village, Kuraha, Block, Navgaon, District Chhatarpur. In the District Chhatarpur, 53 circles were constituted for establishment of Gram Nyayalayas and the Village Kuraha was treated as one of the circles for the purpose of constitution of the Gram Nyayalaya. For the purpose of constitution of the Gram Nyayalaya, Madhya Pradesh Gram Nyayalaya Adhiniyam, 1996 (Act No. 26 of 1997) (for brevity 'the Act') was enacted and the same came into force on 19.5.1997. The Janpad Panchayat unanimously recommended one of the seven persons including that of the petitioner. The name of the petitioner was included as a 'law knowing person' on the basis of the recommendation issued by teh Janpad Panchayat, the Principal Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, issued a list of appointed members of Gram Nyayalaya after formalities were to be carried out by the Collector of the District. As set forth the name of the petitioner was published in daily newspaper 'Chhatarpur Bhaskar' on 23.5.2002. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Navgaon by letter dated 27.5.2002 communicated to the petitioner that his presence was necessary for the election of Pradhan. The petitioner attended the same. He had also undergone training as per request letter issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Pane hay at, Navgaon.

2. As pleaded, the petitioner was appointed as a Member of the Gram Nyayalaya, as is evincible from the document brought on record. But all of a sudden, on 11.12.2002 his nomination dated 1.5.2002, Annexure P-1 was cancelled without issuing him any notice to show cause. It is contended that the term of a member of a Gram Nyayalaya as per the provisions of the Act is five years, but the same has been curtailed by an abrupt stroke, without affording an opportunity of being heard despite the factum that the name of the petitioner was duly recommended and accepted by the State Government. It is urged in the petition that the petitioner was perfectly qualified to hold the post of the Member and in the absence of any disqualification his membership could not have been cancelled and that too is in flagrant violation of the doctrine of audi alteram partem. In this background a prayer has been made for issue of a Writ of Certiorati for quashment of cancellation contained in Annexure P-5.

3. At the very outset, it is thought condign to state that though no counter-affidavit was filed by the State of M.P. but Mr. Harish Agnihotri learned Government Advocate for the State agreed to argue the matter without filing a return, as it was canvassed by him that a pure question of law arises on the factual assertion made by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, I have heard the matter finally.

4. Mr. Adil Usmani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the appointment having been fructified and concretized, could not have been nullified without following the principles of natural justice. It is urged by him that it is clearly demonstrable that prior to passing of the order of cancellation the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. It is his proponement that when a benefit has been conferred and it is obvious and distinct that the same has been taken away without hearing a person the whole action is vitiated. The learned counsel further contended that his right ·could not be obliterated and decimated without following the requirement of principles of natural justice, as such action is not only flawed and defective, but destroys the basis fabric of adjudication.

5. Mr. Harish Agnihotri, learned Government Advocate for the State, countering the aforesaid submissions contended that) annihilation of the right as put forth by the petitioner in the case at hand, does not require attraction of the principles of natural justice, as the assertions made in the petition would go a long way to show that the petitioner was no