Apeejay Surrendra Park Hotels Ltd vs Union Of India

$~56
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 14445/2024 & CM APPL. 60578/2024

Date of Decision : 16.04.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:


APEEJAY SURRENDRA PARK HOTELS LTD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Bansal, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar, Ms. Tulna
Rampa, Ms Nikita Gupta, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Neeraj (SPC) with Mr.
Soumyadip Chakraborty, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The petition is for setting aside communication dated 10.04.2024
issued by the respondent, whereby, the petitioner has been directed to pay an
amount of Rs. 1,42,05,896/- towards outstanding rent with respect to the
premises situated at 15, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. Further, a
prayer for setting aside communication dated 04.07.2024, whereby the
respondent has rejected the petitioner’s request for revision of the ground
rent, has also been made.
2. One of the grounds on which the impugned action is assailed, is that
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:25.04.2026
15:14:54

the petitioner was not issued any prior show-cause notice.
3. The dispute in the present petition is almost identical to the dispute in
W.P. (C) 6211/2024 and W.P.(C) 8178/2024, wherein, the petitioners
assailed similar notices. On the first date of hearing, i.e., 15.10.2024, this
Court noted the said aspect and granted interim relief to the petitioners with
respect to coercive action.
4. The Court vide order dated 10.03.2026, has already disposed of writ
petition W.P.(C) 6211/2024 ( Hardev Singh Akoi and Ors. v. Union of
1
India . ) and W.P.(C) 8178/2024 ( M/s Claridges Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of
2
India . ). In both the decisions, the Court has taken note of the decisions of
the Supreme Court in Biecco Lawrie Ltd. and Anr. v. State of West Bengal
3 4
and Anr. , and Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy , whereby, the necessity of
affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties for satisfying the
requirement of fair procedure has been enunciated by the Court. The
relevant partition of the decision in Biecco Lawrie Ltd. and Anr. is
extracted below, for reference:
“24. It is fundamental to fair procedure that both sides should be
heard— audi alteram partem i.e. hear the other side and it is often
considered that it is broad enough to include the rule against bias since a
fair hearing must be an unbiased hearing. One of the essential
ingredients of fair hearing is that a person should be served with a
proper notice i.e. a person has a right to notice. Notice should be clear
and precise so as to give the other party adequate information of the case
he has to meet and make an effective defence. Denial of notice and
opportunity to respond result in making the administrative decision as
vitiated.”
5. Paragraph no. 10 of the decision in Canara Bank is reproduced

1
2026:DHC:2218
2
2026:DHC:2227
3
(2009) 10 SCC 32.
4
(2005) 6 CC 321.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:25.04.2026
15:14:54

below, for reference:
“10. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognised by all
civilised States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body
embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any
administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These
principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is
commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should
be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must
be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively
of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be
adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence
of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed
becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be
put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him.
This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after
all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance
and shades with time. When the historic document was made at
Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this principle found
its way into the “Magna Carta”. The classic exposition of Sir Edward
Coke of natural justice requires to “vocate, interrogate and adjudicate”.
In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works the
principle was thus stated: (ER p. 420)
“[E]ven God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he
was called upon to make his defence. ‟Adam‟ (says God), „where
art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded
thee that thou shouldest not eat?‟”
Since then the principle has been chiselled, honed and refined, enriching
its content. Judicial treatment has added light and luminosity to the
concept, like polishing of a diamond.”
6. Further, this Court took note of the decision of the Madras High Court
in the case of M. Guruswamy Nadar v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious
5
and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai , wherein, the Court set
aside the respondent’s action of fixing ‘fair rent’ which the petitioner was
liable to pay, without affording an opportunity of hearing, on the ground that
the principles of natural justice were not complied with.
7. This Court, in Hardev Singh Akoi and M/s Claridges Hotel has set

5
(2018) 3 MWN (Civil) 167.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:25.04.2026
15:14:54

aside unilateral revision of rent by the respondent without hearing the
petitioners. The relevant portion of the said decisions is extracted below, for
reference:
“6. The Court notes that by an interim order dated 30.05.2024, the
operation of the impugned order has been stayed. There is nothing on
record to controvert the primary submission made by the petitioners
regarding affording of opportunity of hearing. In light of the facts of the
instant case and the law discussed above, the Court, instead of going into
the merits of the matter, deems it appropriate to set aside the same only
on this ground alone.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted
back to the respondent to decide afresh after extending opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners. If the petitioners, thereafter, are aggrieved by
the said order, they shall be at liberty to take appropriate recourse in
accordance with law.”

8. For the aforesaid reason, even this petition also deserves to be
disposed of with similar directions.
9. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 10.04.2024 and 04.07.2024
stand set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the respondent to decide
afresh after extending the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
10. Petition stands disposed of.
11. If the petitioner has any grievance, it shall be at liberty to take
appropriate recourse in accordance with law.


PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
APRIL 16, 2026/p






Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:25.04.2026
15:14:54