AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mishra, J.—These writ petitions by different petitioners involve similar questions as have been disposed of by this Court in Writ Petition No.
15934 of 1988 and other analogous cases. For the said reason alone these writ petitions are admitted and disposed of finally after hearing Learned
Counsel for the petitioners and the Learned Counsel for the respondents. Since these petitions question the validity of the proceedings of the
Collector of Tiruchirapalli in and by which the caste community certificates issued in favour of the petitioners were cancelled after issuing a show
cause notice to them and after affording a personal hearing to them, this Court has taken the view that since it is well-settled that any administrative
order which is likely to visit some one with civil consequences, is made only after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the person
visited with such consequence, and in the case before the court it was found that no adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioners, the
Court ordered:
In my view, a post-facto enquiry to test the veracity of the report of the third respondent with reference to the statement to the villagers will satisfy
the ends of justice. On the facts of this case, I am inclined to order and accordingly direct the Collector, Tiruchirapalli the second respondent either
himself to verify the statements of the villagers by examining them afresh in the presence of the petitioners or appoint any other officer to enquire
into the allegations levelled against the petitioners with reference to the statements of the individual villagers in the presence of the petitioners-Such
enquiry by the Collector should conclude within a period of three months from today. In case in such enquiry it is found that the villagers support
the report submitted by the third respondent, which formed the basis of the order of the Collector, the Collector shall accordingly pass order
affirming his earlier order. As a consequence of the affirmation of the order of the Collector, it is needless to state that the first respondent may
proceed with the enquiry as to the validity or otherwise of the appointment of the petitioners or to take such action as may be deemed fit and
proper. However, it is found that the preliminary report submitted by the third respondent was not genuine, the Collector may pass suitable orders
accordingly either recalling the impugned orders or proceeding afresh in accordance with law on the basis of such materials that may be available
for action against caste/community certificates of the petitioners.
Until, however, the enquiry is concluded as ordered today, and until the Collector''s order cancelling the caste/community certificates issued in
favour of the petitioners affirming his earlier order is passed, the first respondent/Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, it is obvious, must keep any
proceeding or enquiry against the petitioners in abeyance
Since the facts are similar, these petitions are also disposed of in terms aforequoted. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed to the extent
indicated above. No costs.