The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has affirmed that a breach of natural justice doesn't imply prejudice when only one conclusion is possible based on admitted or undisputed facts.
Justice Sindhu Sharma upheld the cancellation of the shop allotment in Jammu to the petitioner.
"Even in cases where no opportunity for a hearing is provided, if only one possible view exists based on undisputed and admitted facts, the challenged notice cannot be invalidated."
The petitioner contested the cancellation of the allocation of Shop No. 5(B-2) in Jammu. This 605.62 sq. ft. shop was assigned by the Jammu Development Authority in response to a notice dated 22.02.2006.
The allotment came with conditions, including paying the premium in five monthly installments. The petitioner paid the first installment on schedule but couldn't make the second payment due to health problems and business setbacks.
The petitioner stated that, following his recovery from illness, he inquired with the authorities about the allotment. To his surprise, he was informed that his allocation had been canceled without prior notice. The cancellation was attributed to his failure to pay the remaining installments and a breach of the Letter of Intent terms.
Upon examining the conditions in the Letter of Allotment, Justice Sharma observed that, in accordance with the Letter of Intent terms, any delay in payment would result in an 18% penal interest charge for a maximum of three months.
Beyond this specified period, any delay empowered the authority to cancel the allocation and retain the initial installment. The petitioner failed to submit the remaining four installments within 120 days from the date of allocation, which violated the allotment terms.
In the case of Skyline Contractors Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. State Of U.P., the bench affirmed the authority's prerogative to cancel an allotment when payment terms are not adhered to.
"The petitioner's failure to comply with the aforementioned condition allowed the respondents to appropriately invoke the allotment terms and cancel it, citing that the delay gave the authority the right to cancel the allotment and retain the premium paid in a single installment."
Considering the petitioner's argument about the lack of a hearing opportunity before the allotment cancellation, the bench referred to the terms and conditions in the Letter of Allotment. It explicitly stated that any delay in payment beyond the three-month limit would grant the authority the right to cancel the allotment and keep the first installment.
Additionally, the bench referred to "Aligarh Muslim University Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan," (2000) 7 SCC, to emphasize the exception in which a breach of natural justice may not necessarily lead to prejudice. The court reiterated this principle.
In essence, if no alternative conclusion could be drawn from established or undisputed facts, it is not mandatory to invalidate an order passed in violation of natural justice. However, it's important to exercise caution when applying this exception, as it is not a common occurrence.
TAGS: Bench Letter of Allotment Delay in Payment Allotment Cancellation Exception to Natural Justice.
