The court held that the cancellation of legal certifications (COIs) without providing the relied-upon reports to the affected parties and without allowing them to adduce evidence violates the principles of natural justice, necessitating a remand for fresh consideration.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

(A. Muhamed Mustaque, C.J.)

1. This Writ Petition was filed challenging the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Namchi District, Sikkim dated 23.02.2022 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 04.08.2023. Vide the orders, the Certificate of Identifications (COIs) issued to the Petitioners were cancelled. The Petitioners had applied for the COIs as the natural legal heirs of late Ranga Lall Dhungel.

2. The COIs were issued after conducting an inquiry. Thereafter, the nephews of late Rangal Lall Dhungel and the Sikkim Suraksha Samiti lodged a complaint. In the complaint, it was alleged that COIs were obtained by misrepresentation or fraud and that the Petitioners had impersonated themselves as the biological legal heirs of late Ranga Lall Dhungel. The Additional District Magistrate cancelled the COIs relying on oral testimony and some report of the authority concerned. The oral testimony shows that late Ranga Lall Dhungel was a bachelor at the time of his death and was unmarried. The report relied upon has not been furnished anywhere.

3. Anyway, by considering the nature of the orders, this Court is of the view that this matter is required to be remanded back for fresh consideration.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on an affidavit which had not been produced before this Court to show that late Ranga Lall Dhungel was married to late Goma Devi. It is submitted that the Petitioners were born in the wedlock.

5. First of all, it has to be found out whether Petitioners are biological offsprings of the marriage. It is necessary to consider whether there was a marriage between late Ranga Lall Dhungel with late Goma Devi. An opportunity should be given to the Petitioners to adduce evidence. The Petitioners should also be given a copy of the report which was relied upon by the Additional District Magistrate while arriving at a conclusion to cancel the COIs.

6. After giving an opportunity to the Petitioners as above, a fresh decision shall be taken.

7. Needless to say, the Respondents shall also be heard in that process.

8. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside for the reasons stated above.

9. Needful shall be done within a period of three months.

10. It is made clear that both parties should be given opportunities to adduce evidence. The Additional District Magistrate shall also serve a copy of the report relied upon in the matter for cancellation of the COIs to the Petitioners as well as the other Respondents.