An order prejudicing an impleaded respondent without notice violates natural justice and must be set aside.

The appellant, Pramod Tiwari, was impleaded as respondent no. 10 in C.W.J.C. No. 12702 of 2022.

The learned Single Judge directed the District Magistrate, Saran, to pay compensation of ₹96,390 to the writ petitioner and granted liberty to recover that amount from either respondent no. 10 or the District Land Acquisition Officer.

The appellant contended that, although the order exposed him to a potential recovery of the compensation amount, no notice had been issued to him and he had not been heard before the order was passed.

The writ petitioner did not dispute the absence of notice and consented to the order being set aside and the matter being remanded.

The State subsequently alleged that, under coercion and threat, double payment of ₹96,390 had been made to both the appellant and the writ petitioner.

1. Whether an order granting the State liberty to recover compensation from an impleaded private respondent can be passed without issuing notice to or hearing that respondent?

2. Whether the Single Judge’s order dated 05.12.2022, having been passed behind the appellant’s back and to his detriment, violated the principles of natural justice and was liable to be set aside?

3. Whether, in the event of double payment by the State, liability to refund one payment should remain subject to the result of the restored writ petition?

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem, under which a person likely to suffer civil consequences from an order must be given notice and a meaningful opportunity of hearing; it also referred to nemo judex in causa sua.

Relying on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, and State Bank of India v. Rajes Agarwal, (2023) 6 SCC 1, the Court reiterated that orders affecting property, civil rights, or other civil consequences must conform to natural justice.

The Court further relied on State of Odisha v. Samal Barrage Employees’ Union, (2022) 16 SCC 108, and Suneeta Devi v. Avinash, (2024) 17 SCC 237, which establish that an order passed without notice to an affected party, particularly where the proceedings are disposed of in haste, is legally unsustainable and may be quashed.

The liberty granted to the District Magistrate to recover ₹96,390 from the appellant directly exposed him to an adverse financial consequence.

Since the appellant was an impleaded respondent and no notice had been issued to him, he had no opportunity to contest the claim, explain the basis of payment, or address the proposed recovery.

The Court held that the absence of notice was not a procedural irregularity but a violation of the fundamental requirement of audi alteram partem.

The admitted failure to hear the appellant, together with the writ petitioner’s consent to remand, rendered the Single Judge’s order arbitrary and legally infirm.

As the underlying writ petition required determination after hearing all affected parties, it was restored for fresh adjudication.

The issue of any double payment was consequently left open, with refund liability made subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

C.W.J.C. No. 12702 of 2022 was restored to its original file for fresh hearing before the appropriate Bench.

The Court clarified that, if the State had made double payment of ₹96,390, one of the two private parties would be liable to refund the excess amount, subject to the final result of the restored writ petition.

The appeal was accordingly allowed.