Shri Damodar Prasad Chirania v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/767/2023 Shri Dhamodar Prasad Chirania Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and another Mr. KMB Jayapal .... for the petitioner Mr. V.D.Sivabalan ... for the respondents January 19, 2024 [SR] Item No.13 This writ petition has been filed challenging an order dated June 07, 2023 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, South Andaman.

The petitioner challenges the order on two grounds. (a) The petitioner was not heard.

(b) The authorities relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench and rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that once the diversion case had been rejected earlier, the subsequent prayer for diversion could not be allowed. Mr. Jayapal submits that although the order records that a hearing was given, he has taken a specific plea that no substantial hearing was permitted. Secondly, it is contended that the order of the High Court which has been referred to in the order impugned, was not supplied to the petitioner.

The petitioner purchased the property some time in 2016 and the order of the High Court referred to, appears to have been passed in MA/007 to 016 and 024 of 2014. The order of the High Court was apparently passed sometime 2014. Thus, the contention

of Mr. Jayapal is that the undertaking given by the vendor and the documents relied upon by the authority, including the order of the Hon'ble High Court, ought to have been supplied to the petitioner before the authority decided the case on the basis of such documents and orders.

Mr. Sivabalan submits that the order impugned is an appealable order and the petitioner has the opportunity to prefer an appeal. He also submits that the petitioner stepped into the shoes of his vendor and the order of the High Court would apply to him. Such submission has some merit. This court is of the view that any order or document which is used against a party, should be supplied to the party, before a decision is taken on the basis of the same. The party should be allowed to deal with such document and respond to the same, before the final decision is taken by the authority.

Reference is made to the Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabd and others vs. B. Karunakar and others reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727.

Under such circumstances, the order impugned is set aside, only on the ground of alleged non-supply of the order of the Hon'ble High court and the approval dated November 19, 2017 in RC No.2070/2014/TPB, which were relied upon by the authority. Non supply of such documents, amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.

The authority shall revisit the matter and pass a fresh decision upon hearing the petitioner and upon supply of the documents mentioned herein above. The petitioner would be granted an opportunity to respond to the said documents within a

week from receipt thereof. Thereafter, a reasoned order shall be passed upon hearing the petitioner and communicated to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of communication of this order. This Court has not gone into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, for diversion of land.

As no affidavits have been called for, the allegations are deemed to be denied.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. ( Shampa Sarkar, J. )