If Only One Conclusion Possible From Undisputed Facts, Possible Breach Of Natural Justice Does Not Automatically Imply Prejudice: J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reiterated that in situations where only one conclusion was possible upon admitted or undisputed facts, a breach of natural justice does not automatically imply prejudice.Justice Sindhu Sharma thus upheld the cancellation of the allotment of a shop in Jammu to the allotee petitioner. “Even otherwise, if on undisputed and admitted fact, if only one view is possible, then even if no opportunity of hearing is provided, the impugned notice can[not] be quashed”.The petitioner challenged the cancellation of the allotment of Shop No. 5(B-2) in Jammu. The shop, measuring 605.62 sq. ft., was allotted by the Jammu Development Authority in response to an advertisement dated 22.02.2006. The allotment was subject to various conditions, including the payment of the premium in five monthly instalments. The petitioner paid the first instalment on time but could not deposit the second installment due to health issues and business setbacks.The petitioner claimed that, after recovering from his illness, he approached the authorities for information about the allotment. However, he was informed that his allotment was cancelled without prior notice. The cancellation was based on the grounds that the petitioner had not paid the remaining installments and had violated the terms of the Letter of Intent.The petitioner contended that he was willing to deposit the entire remaining premium amount in a single installment. He argued that the authorities cancelled his allotment and forfeited the first installment without issuing any prior notice or providing an opportunity for him to be heard, thus violating the principles of natural justice.Scrutinizing the terms of the Letter of Allotment, Justice Sharma noted that, as per the terms of the Letter of Intent, any delay in payment would attract 18% penal interest for a maximum of three months. Beyond this period, the delay would empower the authority to cancel the allotment and forfeit the first installment. The petitioner did not deposit the remaining four instalments within 120 days from the date of allotment, thus violating the terms of the allotment.Referencing Skyline Contractors Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. State Of U.P. the bench asserted the authority's right to cancel an allotment when payment terms are unmet.“The petitioner having defaulted the aforesaid condition, the respondents have rightly invoked the condition of allotment and cancelled the same on the ground that delay would empower the authority to cancel allotment and forfeit the premium paid in one installment”.Deliberating on the other contention of the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was provided to him before cancellation of the allotment, the bench pointed to the terms and conditions of the Letter of Allotment which clearly specified that any delay in payment beyond the maximum period of three months would empower the authority to cancel the allotment and forfeit the first installment.Furthermore, the bench cited Aligarh Muslim University Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan”, (2000) 7SCC and highlighted the exception where breach of natural justice might not result in prejudice. The court reiterated,“In other words, if no other conclusion was possible on admitted or indisputable facts, it is not necessary to quash the order which was passed in violation of natural justice. Of course, this being an exception, great care must be taken in applying this exception.”As such, the bench dismissed the petition.Case Title: Shamsher Singh Manhas V/s State of J&K and othersCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 273Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

If Only One Conclusion Possible From Undisputed Facts, Possible Breach Of Natural Justice Does Not Automatically Imply Prejudice: J&K High Court

Basit Amin Makhdoomi

Tags