Absence of notice in writ proceedings stands cured if the party is subsequently heard during administrative adjudication.

The appellant, Jasumati Devi, challenged an order dated 24.02.2025 passed by a Single Judge in a writ petition filed by Reeta Devi and Surji Devi (Respondents 6 & 7).

The writ petitioners sought to secure possession of land allotted to them under a government scheme and to restrain the appellant from encroaching upon it.

The Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by directing the Circle Officer, Purnahiya, to take a decision based on a prior District Magistrate order (Memo No. 459), without issuing notice to the appellant.

The appellant filed this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) alleging a violation of the principles of natural justice.

During the pendency of the LPA, the state submitted that the Circle Officer had since issued notice to the appellant, heard her submissions, and passed a final order on 15.06.2025, restoring possession to the beneficiaries.

1. Whether the Single Judge’s order was sustainable given the alleged non-compliance with the principles of natural justice due to the lack of notice to the appellant.

2. Whether the dispute regarding the issuance of subsequent notice and the adjudication of rival claims by the Circle Officer can be resolved in a Letters Patent Appeal.

The court applied the fundamental principle of Natural Justice (*Audi Alteram Partem*), which requires providing a fair opportunity of hearing to an affected party before passing an adverse order.

Furthermore, the court relied on the doctrine of Alternative Remedy, which posits that discretionary writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when a statutory or alternative legal forum is available to adjudicate disputed questions of fact and provide relief against a subordinate authority's final order.

The Court examined the appellant's primary grievance that she was not heard by the Single Judge.

However, the Court looked at the subsequent developments evidenced by the Circle Officer’s order sheet.

The state’s supplementary counter-affidavit indicated that, following the Single Judge's direction, the Circle Officer did indeed issue notice to the appellant.

The record showed the appellant appeared on 29.03.2025 and made submissions across multiple dates before a final order was passed on 15.06.2025.

The Court noted that while the appellant disputed receiving notice, these were "disputed questions of fact" unsuitable for adjudication in an LPA.

It reasoned that since a final order had now been passed by the Circle Officer after purportedly hearing the appellant, her grievance regarding the initial lack of notice was largely mitigated or shifted to the merits of the new order.

The Court clarified that it is open to the appellant to avail of the appropriate alternative remedy in accordance with the law.

Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of without further relief.