ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. - (1.) THE order of the prescribed authority dated 21.10.2014 has been challenged on various grounds. The first and foremost contention advanced by Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is that before passing the order impugned, no hearing has taken place. Reliance has been placed upon the order -sheet of the authority, according to which, the matter was taken up on 17.10.2014, on which date, the respondent submitted their written argument but the original record itself were not available. The matter, therefore, was adjourned for orders on the next date i.e. on 18.10.2014. The order sheet dated 18.10.2014 shows that the original record itself was not available therefore, a direction has been issued that the original record be summoned through special messenger from the office of Assistant Registrar and, therefore, the matter was fixed for 21.10.2014. On 21.10.2014, it seems that the record has been received and on the basis of written submission filed, the order was reserved and pronounced on the same day. It is contended in para -54 of the writ petition that no hearing whatsoever took place before the prescribed authority.
(2.) SRI K. Shahi has filed his caveat on behalf of respondent nos. 5 to 7 and he states that he has instructions on behalf of respondent nos. 8 to 16 and the Vakalatnama shall be filed on their behalf. He submits that since written arguments were on record, therefore, no oral hearing in the matter was required.
(3.) I have considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. This court is of the opinion that the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted by the prescribed authority and impugned order has been passed, clearly shows that reasonable opportunity of contest to the parties has been denied .Once the record itself were received on 21.10.2014, it was incumbent upon the authority to have fixed the date for oral hearing in the matter and as this was not done, the order impugned, on this short ground, itself is vitiated. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the institution otherwise false within the limits of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hata who is the prescribed authority for the institution and the matter was taken up by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Padrauna only because of the fact that on the previous occasions, apprehension of bias was expressed against the then officers and, as such, the proceedings had been transferred before the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Padrauna. However, as the then officers have already been transferred, therefore, it is a fit case in which the matter ought to be placed before the Prescribed Authority concerned i.e. the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hata. On this proposition, SRi K. Shahi has no objection.;