Court emphasized the importance of personal hearing in administrative proceedings, setting aside an order for lack of evidence confirming such opportunities.

Order

The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the assessment order passed by the second respondent dated 27.02.2025 and the order passed in the Rectification Application dated 23.05.2025 and to quash the same. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent without even affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner passed the assessment order and though the petitioner filed an Application seeking for rectification of the said order, the same has been dismissed vide order dated 23.05.2025, which was again without providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, and hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned orders, as the same suffer from violation of principles of natural justice.

3. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents drawn the attention of this Court to para No.6 sub para (i), (j) and (k) of the sworn affidavit filed by the petitioner, wherein, the manner, in which, personal hearing opportunity was provided to the petitioner for nearly three occasions, i) firstly, vide show cause notice dated 25.11.2024, and secondly vide two reminder notice dated 02.01.2025 and 19.02.2025 have been mentioned and hence, he submitted that despite provision of such opportunities, the petitioner has never come forward to make his submission and file documents, no doubt, a request was made by the petitioner for opportunity of personal hearing before passing any adverse order, which is mentioned in the affidavit filed by the petitioner at Para No.5 (k) and even at that point of time, such request was made only for provision of personal hearing and not for submission of documents, and since nearly opportunity of personal hearing was granted thrice, such a request was not acceded to by the second respondent and passed the assessment order. Therefore, it is submitted that it is not fair on the part of the petitioner to have a say that no personal hearing opportunity was afforded to him before passing the assessment order.

3.1 However, as far as the order of rejection of the Rectification Application is concerned, the petitioner, if at all aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the second respondent, he ought to have filed an Appeal, instead the petitioner has filed Rectification Application on the ground that there was an error apparent on the face of record, even assuming that there was an error in the assessment order, even in such case, the petitioner is supposed to have filed documents in support of his contention, having failed to adduce documents, the second respondent rejected the said Rectification Application as well. However, the learned Special Government Pleader fairly admitted that since in the order passed in the Rectification Application there is no whisper about the provision of personal hearing to the petitioner, he suggested that, in the event, the petitioner is restricting his relief and seeks for setting aside the order passed in the Rectification Application alone dated 23.05.2025, the said order dated 23.05.2025 may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the second respondent for fresh consideration.

4. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is agreable for the suggestion putforth by the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

6. This Writ Petition is filed challenging both the assessment order as well as the order of rejection of the Rectification Application passed by the second r