Judgment:
Ar. Lakshmanan, J.
1. Heard Mr. B. S. Krishnan for the appellant and Mr. Antony C. Ettukettil for the first respondent.
2. The first respondent filed the Original Petition for a mandamus directing the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Thiruvanan-thapuram to consider and dispose of Ext. P-1 complaint within the time prescribed by this Court. We have perused Ext. P-1 complaint ad-dressed to the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption. In the complaint several allegations have been made against the 2nd respondent in the Original Petition/appellant herein. It is stated that the appellant company has violated certain conditions of the agreement and awarded the contract to some third party rejecting the offer of the petitioner/1st respondent herein. It is further staled that the Management resorted to foul play and connived with the present canteen contractor. The petitioner, therefore, prayed to conduct a detailed enquiry into the award of tender to run the canteens of the appellant Company.
3. When the Original Petition came up for admission on 19th March, 1999, the learned single Judge, without ordering notice to the respondents, straightway allowed the writ petition at the admission stage by the following judgment
'The petitioner has filed Ext. P-1 complaint before the first respondent. Therefore, the first respondent is directed to consider the complaint of the petitioner in Ext. P-1 and to take a decision in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.'
Being aggrieved by the above judgment, the 2nd respondent in the Original Petition has preferred this Writ Appeal.
4. According to the learned counsel for theappellant, the judgment of the learned single Judge, straightway allowing the Writ Petition, is not correct in law and that the judgment, which has been rendered without notice to the appellant herein, is liable to be set aside. According to him, several factual aspect of the matter in dispute are conspicuously absent in the Original Petition. The appellant also could not bring to the notice of the learned single Judge such factual aspects since the Original Petition was allowed without notice to the appellant. Therefore, it is submitted that the Original Petition is bad for non-disclosure of material facts and is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. It is further submitted that the Original Petition has been filed with i/.terior motives and that after the disposal of the Original Petition, news items appeared in all the leading dailies, copies of which have been produced by the appellant as Annexures 1 to 2(a) to show that the Original Petition has been filed only for publicity. The appellant has specifically denied the allegations made in Ext. P-1 representation, which is without any date and it is not stated in the Original Petition as to when and how the said representation was filed before the 2nd respondent. A few other contentions also have been taken by the appellant. We are of the opinion that it is premature for this Court to go into the merits of the rival contentions.
5. It is settled law that no decision adverse to any party shall be taken without giving the affected party an effective opportunity of meeting the allegations against him before such decision is taken. This principle requires that every person whose right is affected must have a reasonable notice of the case he has to meet. He must be furnished with the information upon which the action (in the instant case Ext. P-1) is based. He must have a reasonable opportunity of being heard in his defence and to meet the case against him. In the instant case, such a reasonable opportunity to be heard was not given to the appellant by this Court. The case was decided in the absence of the appellant and a vigilance enquiry was ordered on that basis. It is settled by a catena of decisions of this Court and the Apex Court that a decision taken on the basis of information gathered on the back of the party affected, without giving him an opportunity to rebut such information or material, is opposed to the principles of natural justice. This principle is attractedin the instant case since a proper opportunity was not given to the appellant to meet the case against it by filing a counter-affidavit and producing evidence.
6. We are of the opinion that when a serious allegation is made before this Court, this Court is bound to issue notice to the person or persons against whom such allegation is made, affording an opportunity of hearing. That settled procedure has not been complied with in this case, which compels us to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and remit the matter to the learned single Judge with a request to dispose of the same in accordance with law after issuing notice to the respondents and after affording opportunity to file a counter-affidavit.
The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs.