Smt. Cesilya D''Souza vs Department of Mines and Geology

J.S. Khehar, C.J.—Mr. Sandesh J. Chouta Adv. for the Petitioner. Mr. R.G. Kolle, AGA for Respondents 1 and 2.

Learned Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 acknowledges, that no notice was offered to the Petitioner herein before the impugned order dated 16.11.2010 (Annexare-A) was passed. It is acknowledged, at the hands of the learned Counsel for the Respondents, that impugned order dated 16.11.2010 had adverse civil consequences quay the Petitioner, and as such, it was imperative for the Respondents to follow rules of natural justice before passing the impugned order.

In view of the factual/legal position noticed hereinabove, the learned Counsel for the Respondents states, that the impugned order dated 16.11.2010 may be treated as having been revoked. He however, states that liberty be granted to the Respondents to issue notice to the Petitioner in terms of principles of natural justice.

In view of the statement made by the learned Counsel for the Respondents, the instant petition has been rendered infructuous with the revocation of the order dated 16.11.2010. Be that as it may, liberty is granted to the Respondents to initiate action against the Petitioner, on the same cause of action, by following the rules of natural justice.

Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.