- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been preferred for quashing the ex -parte order dated 09.01.2006 (Annexure -4) passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner Singhbhum (East), Jamshedpur in H.R.C. Appeal No. 03 of 2004 -05 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent no. 3, the Commandant Jharkhand Armed Force -6, Jamshedpur has been allowed. The petitioner's contention is that it is apparent from the entire order sheet of the case as contained in Annexure -3 of the writ petition that impugned order has been passed without any notice to the petitioner -landlord and without giving him any opportunity of hearing and the order impugned is in violation of principles of natural justice. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order of the original authority was in their favour and Execution Case No. 15 of 2006 is also pending before the Court of learned Sub -Judge -1, Jamshedpur arising out from said order. During the pendency of the said Execution Case, the order was passed without any notice and knowledge to the petitioner by the respondent no. 2 in favour of the respondent no. 3 without taking into account the contention of the petitioner as he has never been served any notice or given an opportunity to show cause.
(3.) ON perusal of Anenxure -3, which is the complete order sheet as stated by the petitioner, in H. R. C. Appeal No. 03 of 2004 -05, it appears that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner nor any notice was issued before passing the final order by the Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner Singhbhum (East), Jamshedpur. At the same time, the law in relation to availing of remedy invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is no longer res -integra even in a case, where an alternative statutory remedy is there when the order passed by the Authorities is without jurisdiction or where principles of natural justice have been violated or fundamental right of the person aggrieved have been vitiated. The case of the petitioner apparently falls under the second category and therefore, contrary to the submission made by the learned counsel for the State, the writ petitioner, who has not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of revision before Commissioner against the impugned order, is justified in invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The impugned order has been passed without following principles of natural justice in an ex -parte manner. This court finds that the order is also vitiated on account of failure to follow the procedure prescribed under the law and decision making process thus stands vitiated.;