Smti. Pavitra Kumari v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/291/2024 Smti. Pavitra Kumari Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others Mr. K. M. B. Jayapal .... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the Administration Ms. Vinita Devi ... for the private respondent [on behalf of Mr.G.B.Kumar] July 11, 2024 [SR] Item No.4 Mr. KMB Jayapal submits his client had not been heard and the order was passed by the Tehsildar concerned ex parte. Accordingly, he prays that this Court may entertain the writ petition and remand the matter for hearing by the Tehsildar concerned. In view of the aforesaid submission, I called upon Ms.Babita Das appearing for the respondent authorities to produce the records of the Tehsildar concerned.

In the record it is noted as follows:- "The area Choudhury Srinivsas has informed that he has served notice to Pavitra Kumari. Based on the service, it is evident that Pavtira Kumari remained absent without any reason."

Perusal of the aforesaid noting shows the writ petitioner had been informed of the date of hearing but for reasons best known to her had remained absent.

Under such circumstances, the stance of the Tehsildar concerned to proceed with the hearing and pass order ex parte cannot be said to be in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Principles of natural justice are not straight-jacketed formula but must be applied to the peculiar facts of each case. When a litigant has been duly notified of the date of hearing but chose not to appear before the hearing officer and the said officer proceeds ex parte the litigant must blame herself for her inaction. Accordingly I am of the opinion no case for interference in exercise of extra ordinary writ juridication is made out and the writ petitioner is relegated to the appellate remedy under the relevant regulations.

In light of the aforesaid discussion, I dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the writ petitioner to file appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer concerned within seven days from date and in the event the writ petitioner avails of the appellate remedy within the aforesaid period, the time taken in prosecuting the writ petition will be deducted for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation. All issues are kept open.

With these observations, WPA/256/2024 is disposed of. ( Joymalya Bagchi, J. )