D. L. MEHTA, J. - (1.) KHASRA Nos. 718 and 619 situated in village Khatoli District Kota, were auctioned. The petitioners deposited the amount on recalculation. Same mistake was found by the authorities of the State Government which also deposited Ex. 4 and Ex. 5 the sanction letters were also issued by the concerned persons. Notices Ex. 14 and Ex. 15 were issued by the Dy. Secretary (Colonisation) on 22nd May 1974 to show cause why the allotment of khasara No. 718 should not be cancelled. These notices which were issued to Madan Mohan and Prelad only, it was submitted in para No. 14 of the writ petition that in relation to khasra No. 619, no notice for the cancellation of the auction was issued by the department concerned.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to para-14 of the writ petition. It has been mentioned therein that no such notice was issued to the petitioners No. 2 and 4 namely, Kapoor Chand and Hanuman. It is submitted in the writ petition that no notices were issued. In respect of Khasara No. 619 it was issued to the petitioner, Madan Mohan who was the sole allottee. On behalf of the State reply has been filed. In para 1 of the reply it was stated that it was not necessary to issue notice to the petitioner No. 3 and 4 who were the joint allottees with petitioners No. 1 and 2. As far as Khasra No. 7 i 8 is concerned it has also been mentioned therein that it was the duty of the petitioner No. 1 to inform the orders to allottees about the cancellation proceedings. No reply has been given about Khasra No, 618. Learned Government Advocate is not in a position to show that any notice was issued in relation to Khasra N. 619 on the contrary in reply nothing has been said in this matter. Thus, the principles of natural Justice have been violated and no one can be condemned without being heard. The petitioner applied for the copy of the cancellation order on the prescribed fee. He also applied for inspection of the file. The details of this fact have been given in para-17 of the writ petition. In reply to para-17 it was submitted to the provisions of Secretariat Manual because all the files and record of the Secretariat is governed by the Secretariat Manual. It was also submitted that the inspection was not allowed for the time being and the opinion of the Law Department was sought. In the meanwhile the Hon'ble Chief Minister summoned the file and stayed the proceedings. No order for the inspection of the file was passed so far, though, the application was moved on the 8th October, 1975. I do not know what type of Secretariat Rules exists in a country like India where there is open democracy. The order dated 9. 4. 75 cancelling the allotment has been passed against the petitioners and the petitioner is deprived from getting the copy of the order inspite of the fact that he is an aggrieved party. Article 19 (1) of the Constitution provides that all citizens shall have the right of (a) freedom of speech and expression (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms (c) to form associations and unions (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India. The right to freedom of speech and expression is the fundamental right of every citizen and government record is always open for the inspection of the citizens in accordance with the rules. In an open democracy secrecy like this cannot be tolerated and cannot be said to be good in law. It is infringement of the right of a citizen. He has right to know what the Government is doing. We are not living in a country where there is a iron curtain, but we are living in a democratic country and every citizen has fundamental right to know about the working of the State, orders issued by the State and the conduct of the State and the activities of the State can be looked into by the citizen can ask the State Government is doing in a particular manner. There is no arbitrary right of secrecy in an open democracy like India. The Government can be questioned about its acts and omissions and it is the duty of the citizens to move to the Court and also bring to the notice of the Courts about the acts and omissions of the State. Its right to Know may be restricted in some cases like the cases of National Security, peace and order or to any extent is a way which may be called to be a reasonable restriction. Clause (5) of Article 19 provides that in the interest of general public reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the sub-clauses can be imposed. Non supply of the copy of the order by which the allotment order is cancelled or not allowing the petitioner to inspect the file is an infringement of the fundamental right which he is having under Chapter III of the Constitution. If there is any such manual providing such restrictions it is fast in law to that extent. It is an admitted position now that in relation to khasra No. 6!9 no notice was issued and in relation to khasra No. 718 only two parties out of four were informed. The Government has duty to inform all the parties who are interested. Government has taken a plea about khasra No. 718 that out of allottees two were informed and it was the duty of the allottees to inform the other co-allottees, as far as khasra No. 619 is concerned no notice was issued at all. Thus, it is a clear case in which principles of natural justice have been violated.
(3.) GOVERNMENT Advocate submits that the telegram was sent to petitioners. No. 1 and 2 for giving further date but he is not in a position to say what about the petitioners No. 3 and 4. In the result, the writ petition is accepted. The order dated 9. 4. 76 passed by the State Government is set aside. The petitioners are directed to appear before the concerned authorities on 4th August 1986 and appropriate orders will be passed by the concerned authorities after hearing the parties. The Government shall pay Rs. 300/- as costs of this writ petition to the present petitioners. All consequential orders passed by the Dy. Secretary (colonization) shall stand quashed. .;