A writ petition must be heard on merits when pleadings clearly allege denial of an effective hearing.

The appellant challenged an order dated 24 April 2026 by which the learned Single Judge declined to entertain his writ petition.

The Single Judge had earlier directed the Commissioner of Municipalities to explain whether notice had been issued to the petitioner before deciding Appeal No. 3 of 2024.

The Commissioner’s reply stated that notices had been issued.

The petitioner’s pleaded case, however, was that he had not received an effective opportunity of hearing, rather than that no notice had been issued.

The Single Judge considered that the petitioner should have sought clarification of the earlier order and dismissed the petition on account of his conduct

In the Letters Patent Appeal, counsel submitted that the petitioner’s case had not been properly presented before the Single Judge

1. Whether the learned Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition should be set aside where the pleadings raised a claim of inadequate opportunity of hearing, but the petitioner had not sought clarification of the earlier order

2. Whether the matter should be remitted for a fresh decision on merits, and whether costs should be imposed on the appellant

The judgment cites no specific statute, precedent, or codified rule.

It applies the procedural principle that a court may remit a matter for consideration on its merits where the pleadings disclose a case that was not properly presented or appreciated at the earlier hearing.

It also recognises that a party who considers a court order to convey a meaning different from the case being advanced should seek clarification; failure to do so may be relevant to the court’s assessment of the party’s conduct

The Division Bench found that the petitioner’s pleadings supported his contention that the complaint concerned the absence of an adequate opportunity of hearing, not the non-issuance of notice

At the same time, it held that the Single Judge could not be faulted for expecting the petitioner to seek clarification if he considered the order of 16 February 2026 inconsistent with his grievance

In view of the pleadings and counsel’s explanation that the case had not been properly put before the Single Judge, the Bench nevertheless considered remittal appropriate, while imposing costs to balance the equities

The order dated 24 April 2026 was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was restored for a fresh decision on its merits by the Single Judge having the matter under the current roster

The appellant was directed to deposit costs of ₹25,000 with the Gujarat High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks of receiving the order; the Registry was directed not to list the matter before the Single Judge until the costs were deposited