Administrative order passed without mandated hearing violates natural justice and specific judicial directions.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 08.04.2015 passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Katni, whereby the petitioner’s shop lease was cancelled and he was declared an encroacher.

The impugned order was passed pursuant to directions issued in W.P. No. 9752 of 2014, filed by Santosh Agrawal, requiring the Municipal Authorities to decide the complaint after hearing all respondents.

The petitioner had been impleaded as respondent No. 3 in that proceeding and was therefore required to be heard.

Although the opening paragraph of the impugned order stated that notices had been issued to the petitioner and Santosh Agrawal, the order did not record whether the petitioner appeared, was heard, or was proceeded against ex parte.

It also did not consider the petitioner’s stand.

Whether the Commissioner lawfully passed the order dated 08.04.2015 without recording or demonstrating that the petitioner, who was a respondent in the earlier writ petition, had been afforded an effective opportunity of hearing?

Whether the impugned order, having been passed contrary to the specific directions issued by the High Court in W.P. No. 9752 of 2014, was sustainable in law?

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the audi alteram partem rule, under which a person whose rights or interests may be adversely affected must be given a meaningful opportunity of hearing before an adverse decision is taken.

It further applied the binding nature of judicial directions, holding that the Municipal Authority was required to comply with the earlier High Court direction to hear all respondents before deciding the complaint.

The Court treated such hearing as a sine qua non for the validity of the decision and held that an order passed without compliance with the specific judicial direction was unsustainable and, on its face, contemptuous.

The earlier order expressly directed the Municipal Authorities to decide Santosh Agrawal’s complaint after hearing all respondents, which included the present petitioner.

Even assuming that a notice had been issued, the impugned order neither established that the petitioner had actually been heard nor stated that he had failed to appear and was proceeded against ex parte.

The order was also silent about the petitioner’s defence.

Consequently, the Court found that the mandatory hearing requirement and the specific direction in the earlier writ proceedings had not been complied with.

The alleged merits concerning mutation and encroachment could not cure this procedural violation, because the decision-making process itself was vitiated by denial of natural justice.

It therefore set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Katni, for a fresh decision within 90 days from the parties’ appearance, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

The parties were directed to appear before the Commissioner on 01.09.2026, and the writ petition was disposed of.