![Show-Cause Crucial As It Guarantees Fair Hearing Before Adverse Action: HC](https://kashmirobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/courtroom.jpg)
Srinagar- The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has said that show-cause notice is crucial as it protects and guarantees a fair hearing before any adverse action is taken.
A bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal made the observation while allowing a petition, calling into question an order by Jammu Development Authority dated 11 April 2012 whereby a patch of land “allotted and duly leased” in favour of the petitioner was cancelled “without any cogent or valid reason in law”. The petitioner, K Ali Khan had also sought direction to restrain the authorities from taking the possession of the land from him.
“The show cause notice is crucial as it upholds the principles of natural justice by affording the notice an opportunity to respond to specific allegations and present his case,” the court said, underling that it ensures that the rights of the party to whom it is issued are protected and guarantees a fair hearing before any adverse action is taken.
“An order travelling beyond the bounds of notice is impermissible and without jurisdiction to that extent.”
In the instant case, the court said the authorities at no point of time gave an effective opportunity of being heard to the petitioner to defend the land allotted in his favour, despite the fact that he responded to the show cause notice “which transpires that the show cause notice has been served for a mere formality so as to warrant the issuance of cancellation order.”
“It appears to this court that the cancellation order has been passed in a hasty and slipshod manner without considering the genuineness of the allotment and the execution thereof,” the court said and eventually allowed the petition.
“….the instant petition is allowed. The impugned Order of Cancellation, which is an offshoot of the show cause notice, are hereby quashed,” the court said, adding, “Petitioner is directed to keep the amount of Rs 36,76,471/- (Rupees Thirty-Six Lacs, Seventy-Six Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventy-One) in the Account of respondent-JDA within a period of two weeks…”. Subject to doing the same, the court directed JDA to regularize the possession in favour of the petitioner on the basis of allotment order issued way back in the year 2007, followed by the lease deed issued in the year 2008. “The petitioner is at liberty to use the property in question.”