High Court of Gujarat
RAMESHBHAI PARBATBHAI MARAVIYAversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- NIRAL R MEHTA
Holding
A quasi‑judicial authority must not decide a matter solely on a panel advocate’s opinion; it must afford a hearing, consider the evidence, and record reasons, otherwise the order is void.
Summary
The petitioner challenged the Gujarat State’s rejection of his application for regularisation of a commercial building on Plot No.233, arguing that the municipal authority and appellate authority decided the matter without granting him a hearing and relied solely on a panel advocate’s opinion. The land had a complex title history involving multiple sale deeds, unmutated revenue entries, and a proposed society that was never formally regularised. The municipal corporation, invoking the Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized Development Act, 2022, denied the application on the basis of an adverse panel opinion, and the appellate authority affirmed the denial without re‑examining the facts. The High Court examined whether a quasi‑judicial body may pass an order based only on external legal opinion and without observing natural‑justice principles. It held that such orders are void for lack of hearing, reasons, and independent adjudication, and consequently quashed the impugned orders and remitted the matter for fresh consideration with due process.
Issues considered
- Can a quasi‑judicial authority pass an order solely on the basis of a panel advocate’s legal opinion without independent fact‑finding?
- Does denial of a hearing violate the principles of natural justice in administrative/ quasi‑judicial proceedings?
- Is regularisation of a construction permissible under the Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized Development Act, 2022 when the title to the land is disputed?
- Must quasi‑judicial orders contain reasons and be based on material evidence on record?
Legislation cited
Subjects
natural justicequasi‑judicial authorityright to hearingregularisation of unauthorized developmentland title disputeprocedural fairnessmunicipal corporation
Judgment
C/SCA/580/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 580 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 581 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 589 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 590 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 591 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 592 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 593 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 594 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 595 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 599 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 600 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 603 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 604 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 606 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 608 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
KASHYAPBHAI RAMESHBHAI KOTECHA
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SP MAJMUDAR WITH MR MEET D KAKADIA(11896) for the
Page 1 of 23
C/SCA/580/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SAHIL TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5
MR RC SEJPAL(2636) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 16/03/2026
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Since the captioned matters involve an
identical set of facts and raise substantially
similar questions of law, they were heard
together and are being disposed of by this common
judgment, treating Special Civil Application
No.580 of 2026 as the lead matter.
2. By way of the present petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has approached this Court challenging
the legality and validity of the orders dated 31st
December, 2025 and 18th July, 2025, whereby the
application preferred by the petitioner seeking
regularisation of the subject construction under
the Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized
Development Act, 2022 came to be rejected.
3. The brief facts giving rise to the
present petition are stated hereunder:
3.1 The dispute in the present matter
Page 2 of 23
C/SCA/580/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
pertains to the construction carried out on Plot
No.233 admeasuring approximately 166.67 sq. yards
situated in Sitaram Park Proposed Society,
forming part of Final Plot No.72/1 of T.P. Scheme
No.10, carved out from Survey No.50 paiki land
admeasuring about 11 acres and 4 gunthas situated
at Village Motamava, Taluka and District Rajkot.
3.2 The land bearing Survey No.50 paiki
originally belonged to one Aniruddhsinh
Chatursinh Jadeja, Bilharbaben Vibhajibhai
Jadeja, Arvindsinh Vibhajibhai Jadeja and
Kiritsinh Vibhajibhai Jadeja, whose names were
reflected in the revenue record in the year 1999.
Thereafter, the said land came to be sold by way
of four separate registered sale deeds in favour
of Mansukhbhai Chhaganbhai Patel, Bhavanbhai
Ranchhodbhai Patel, Shivabhai Nathabhai Patel,
Mansukhbhai Jivrajbhai Patel, Libabhai Raghavbhai
Patel, Rameshbhai Parbatbhai Patel, Bhaskarbhai
Devshankar Mehta and Mavjibhai Manjibhai Sakhala.
3.3 It appears that entries of the aforesaid
sale deeds were not mutated in the revenue
records. Around the said period in the year 1999,
a proposed housing society came to be formed on
the subject land and construction activities were
undertaken without obtaining requisite statutory
Page 3 of 23
C/SCA/580/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
permissions. According to the petitioner, the
concept of proposed societies was prevalent at
the relevant time and there existed more than
sixty such proposed societies in the city of
Rajkot. It is further the case of the petitioner
that one Jayrajbhai K. Solanki developed and
constructed the Sitaram Co-operative Housing
Society (Proposed) on the subject land and a
layout plan was also prepared in respect thereof.
3.4 It is alleged that the said Jayrajbhai
K. Solanki, in collusion with the original
landowners and the subsequent purchasers,
proceeded to sell several plots in the said
proposed society to various persons including the
petitioner herein by issuing share certificates
and possession receipts during the period between
1999 and 2002. Plot No.233 was originally
allotted to one Rameshbhai Bhurabhai Faldu, whose
rights in the said plot subsequently came to be
transferred to the present petitioner by way of a
transfer deed dated 17th October, 2019.
3.5 The petitioner has further contended
that the said proposed society possessed a
Permanent Account Number bearing No.ACAAS3857J
and the existence of the society as well as the
possession of the petitioner and other members
Page 4 of 23
C/SCA/580/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
over their respective plots is evidenced by
several documents including electricity bills,
photographs and other contemporaneous records.
3.6 It is the case of the petitioner that
immediately upon obtaining possession of the
plot, the petitioner or his predecessor-in-title
constructed a commercial structure upon the
subject plot and has continued to remain in
possession thereof. It is further stated that the
society consists of approximately 150 members who
have raised various residential and commercial
constructions.
3.7 The petitioner has alleged that with a
view to defeat the rights of the purchasers
including the petitioner, the original landowners
instituted four civil suits being Special Civil
Suit Nos.32, 33, 34 and 35 of 2006 against the
purchasers seeking cancellation of the aforesaid
sale deeds.
3.8 It is further the case of the petitioner
that the said suits ultimately came to be
compromised between the original landowners and
the purchasers and four separate compromise
decrees dated 16th April, 2021 came to be passed,
whereby the transactions of the year 1999 were
reversed in favour of the original landowners
Page 5 of 23
C/SCA/580/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
despite the fact that the petitioner and other
similarly situated persons were already in
possession of the plots and that the proposed
society had been in existence since the year
1999.
3.9 Thereafter, the original landowners
entered into further transactions in respect of
the subject land. Since the entries pertaining to
the sale deeds were not mutated in the revenue
record, the subsequent purchaser initiated RTS
proceedings before the revenue authorities. The
said proceedings culminated in an order dated 28 th
October, 2024 passed in Special Civil Application
No.10700 of 2024, whereby this Court directed the
revenue authorities to mutate the entries of the
sale deeds while recording that possession of
part of the land was with the petitioner and
other similarly situated persons. The petitioner
has also instituted Regular Civil Suit No.25 of
2025 before the competent Civil Court at Rajkot
seeking declaration against the original
landowners and the subsequent purchasers, which
is presently pending adjudication.
3.10 In the interregnum, a Draft Town
Planning Scheme No.10 for Motamava came to be
introduced in respect of the subject land.
Page 6 of 23
C/SCA/580/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
However, prior to the final sanction of the said
scheme, the State Government introduced an
amendment to Section 125 of the Gujarat Land
Revenue Code, 1879 by way of the Gujarat Land
Revenue (Amendment) Act, 2017 dated 18th April,
2017, whereby Section 125B came to be inserted
enabling regularisation of proposed societies
such as the one in the present case. Pursuant
thereto, several Government Resolutions dated
between 09th May, 2017 and 25th November, 2019 were
issued prescribing the procedure for
regularisation, which envisaged declaration of
the concerned area as a transitional area
followed by regularisation in accordance with
law. Among the said Government Resolutions, the
Government Resolution dated 19th September, 2017
assumes significance as it empowered the State
Government to declare any such area as a
transitional area for the purpose of regularising
proposed societies.
3.11 According to the petitioner, in
collusion with the town planning authorities, the
original landowners and subsequent purchasers
managed to obtain approval of a layout plan and
also purportedly obtained vacant possession of
the subject land on paper. The petitioner
contends that such depiction of vacant possession
Page 7 of 23
C/SCA/580/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
was wholly incorrect as the petitioner’s
construction had been in existence on the land
for several decades and the same is also contrary
to the recitals contained in the sale deeds.
3.12 The Town Planning Scheme No.10
ultimately came to be finally sanctioned on 21 st
January, 2019 and the plot in question was shown
to be part of Final Plot No.72/1. The petitioner
has contended that the said scheme was sanctioned
without granting any opportunity of hearing to
him. Consequently, the petitioner preferred a
variation application dated 09th January, 2025
which, however, came to be rejected by the Rajkot
Municipal Corporation on 29th March, 2025 on the
ground of absence of ownership and
regularisation.
3.13 It is further the case of the petitioner
that the original landowners had also preferred
an application seeking Non-Agricultural
permission in respect of the land despite the
existence of the proposed society. The petitioner
raised detailed objections to the said
application and it is alleged that the original
landowners attempted to mislead the District
Collector by representing that the land was
vacant and in their possession. Upon
Page 8 of 23
C/SCA/580/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
consideration of the objections, the learned
District Collector rejected the application for
N.A. permission by order dated 08th September,
2021.
3.14 Thereafter, the petitioner along with
other similarly situated persons submitted an
application dated 27th August, 2021 before the
District Collector invoking powers under Section
125B(2) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code seeking
declaration of the area as a transitional area.
3.15 However, the District Collector, by
order dated 31st May, 2024, declined to declare
the area as a transitional area under Section
125B(2) on the ground that the possession over
the subject land was disputed, despite the
petitioner’s contention that his possession over
the plot was undisputed.
3.16 Subsequently, upon enactment of the
Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized
Development Act, 2022, the petitioner submitted
an application dated 11th June, 2023 in the
prescribed form before the West Zone Office of
the respondent No.3–Rajkot Municipal Corporation
seeking regularisation of the existing
construction upon payment of the prescribed
impact fee of Rs.100/-.
Page 9 of 23
C/SCA/580/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
3.17 The petitioner has asserted that the
construction in question was admittedly carried
out prior to the cut-off date prescribed under
the Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized
Development Rules, 2023 and was therefore
eligible for regularisation under the provisions
of the said Act.
3.18 During the pendency of the said
application, the Rajkot Municipal Corporation
issued notices dated 17th August, 2024 and 01st
October, 2024 calling upon the petitioner to
produce development permission. The petitioner
submitted replies to the said notices.
Thereafter, a notice dated 08th October, 2024
under Section 260(1) of the Gujarat Provincial
Municipal Corporations Act came to be issued, to
which the petitioner filed a detailed reply dated
14th October, 2024.
3.19 However, without affording an
opportunity of personal hearing and without duly
considering the reply submitted by the
petitioner, the Municipal Corporation passed an
order dated 11th April, 2025 under Section 260(2)
of the said Act. Aggrieved thereby, the
petitioner preferred Special Civil Application
No.5136 of 2025 before this Court wherein an
Page 10 of 23
C/SCA/580/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
interim order of stay came to be granted on 17 th
April, 2025.
3.20 During the pendency of the said
proceedings, the respondent No.3 authority passed
the impugned order dated 18th July, 2025 rejecting
the petitioner’s application for regularisation
of the subject construction on the basis of an
adverse opinion rendered by the Panel Advocate
regarding the issue of title and ownership.
3.21 Being aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner preferred an appeal dated 29th July,
2025 under Section 12 of the GRUDA Act before the
respondent No.2 – the Appellate Authority.
3.22 The appeal was heard on 06th December,
2025. During the course of the hearing, the
officer of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation
admitted that no opportunity of hearing had been
granted to the petitioner or to other similarly
situated persons. Despite the same, the appeal
came to be rejected by order dated 31st December,
2025 solely on the basis of the report of the
Panel Advocate with regard to the issue of
ownership.
3.23 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with
the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has
Page 11 of 23
C/SCA/580/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
approached this Court by way of the present
petition.
4. Heard Learned Advocate Mr.S.P. Majmudar
with Learned Advocate Mr.Meet Kakadia for the
petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader
Mr.Sahil Trivedi for respondent Nos.1 and 2,
Learned Advocate Mr.H.S. Munshaw for respondent
Nos.3 to 5 and Learned Advocate Mr.R.C. Sejpal
for respondent No.6.
5. Considering that the issue involved in
the present petition lies within a narrow
compass, and upon the request made by the learned
advocates appearing for the respective parties,
the matter is taken up for final hearing at the
stage of admission.
5.1 Rule. Learned advocates appearing for
the respective respondents waive service of
notice of Rule.
6. Learned Advocate Mr.Majmudar appearing
for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned
orders, has advanced the following submissions:
6.1 It is submitted that the impugned orders
passed by the authorities are patently illegal,
having been passed in gross violation of the
Page 12 of 23
C/SCA/580/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
principles of natural justice and, therefore,
deserve to be quashed and set aside.
6.2 It is further submitted that the primary
authority, while rejecting the application of the
petitioner seeking regularisation, admittedly did
not afford any opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. It is contended that while passing
the impugned order, the authority concerned has
merely relied upon the legal opinion of the Panel
Advocate and has failed to apply its independent
mind to the facts of the case. On this ground as
well, the impugned order is liable to be quashed
and set aside.
6.3 It is also submitted that the appellate
authority has failed to exercise its appellate
jurisdiction in a proper and judicious manner.
Despite the fact that the Rajkot Municipal
Corporation itself admitted that the original
order had been passed without granting any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the
appellate authority rejected the appeal on an
altogether different ground, thereby resulting in
serious miscarriage of justice.
6.4 It is contended that the appellate
authority ought to have appreciated that the
order impugned before it was admittedly passed
Page 13 of 23
C/SCA/580/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
without affording an opportunity of hearing and
was based solely upon the opinion of the Panel
Advocate. In such circumstances, the appellate
authority ought to have set aside the said order
and remanded the matter to the primary authority
for fresh consideration.
6.5 Learned Advocate further submitted that
while discharging quasi-judicial functions, the
authority is required to pass orders on the basis
of material and evidence available on record and
not merely on the basis of extraneous material
such as legal opinion. The impugned order, having
been passed solely on the basis of the legal
opinion of the Panel Advocate, is therefore
vitiated by bias and is liable to be quashed and
set aside.
6.6 In support of the aforesaid submissions,
learned advocate for the petitioner has placed
reliance upon the decision of this Court in
Yamunaben D/o. Laxmiben Muljibhai v. Chandulal
Muljibhai Patel, reported in 2009 (5) GLR 3673 :
2009 (3) GLH 608.
6.7 By making the above submissions, Learned
Advocate for the petitioner requested this Court
to allow the petition as prayed for.
Page 14 of 23
C/SCA/580/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
7. Per contra, Learned Advocate Mr.Munshaw
for respondent Nos.3 to 5, while supporting the
impugned orders, has made following submissions:
7.1 Learned Advocate appearing for the
respondent authorities submitted that the
impugned orders passed by the authorities are
fully justified in the facts of the present case.
It is contended that there exists a serious
dispute with regard to the title of the land in
question and, therefore, the rejection of the
petitioner’s application seeking regularisation
cannot, in any manner, be said to be illegal. On
such grounds, it is urged that the present
petition deserves to be dismissed.
7.2 It is further submitted that the
petitioner does not possess any lawful title over
the land in question and, therefore, the
construction sought to be regularised stands upon
land which is not owned by the petitioner. In
such circumstances, it is contended that the
provisions of the Gujarat Regularization of
Unauthorized Development Act, 2022 do not permit
regularisation of such construction.
7.3 Learned Advocate for the respondent
authorities, however, was unable to dispute the
fact that while passing the impugned orders, no
Page 15 of 23
C/SCA/580/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the
petitioner. It was also not disputed that, apart
from the legal opinion of the Panel Advocate, no
independent material or evidence had been taken
into consideration by the authorities while
passing the impugned orders.
7.4 Learned Assistant Government Pleader
Mr.Trivedi adopted the submissions of learned
advocate Mr.Munshaw for respondent Nos.3 to 5.
7.5 Learned Advocate Mr.Sejpal for
respondent No.6 could not dispute the fact that
orders impugned are passed without any
opportunity of hearing and solely based on the
opinion of the panel advocate.
8. Having heard the learned advocates
appearing for the respective parties and having
perused the material available on record, the
short question that arises for consideration
before this Court is whether a quasi-judicial
authority, while discharging its adjudicatory
functions, can be said to be justified in passing
an order solely on the basis of the legal opinion
of the learned Panel Advocate, without
independently examining the material on record
and without applying its own independent mind?
Page 16 of 23
C/SCA/580/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
9. In order to examine and decide the
aforesaid question, it would be appropriate, at
the outset, to take note of certain undisputed
facts emerging from the record:
(i) While passing the order dated 18th July,
2025, the primary authority did not
afford any opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
(ii) A bare perusal of the said order dated
18th July, 2025 indicates that the same
is in the nature of a cyclostyled order,
bereft of any narration of relevant
facts or discussion with regard to the
material or evidence on record.
(iii) It further appears that the Town
Planning Officer of the Rajkot Municipal
Corporation has not applied his
independent mind while passing the said
order and has merely relied upon the
legal opinion of the Panel Advocate.
(iv) The appellate authority, despite having
recorded a finding that the order passed
by the Assistant Town Planning Officer,
Rajkot Municipal Corporation was passed
without affording an opportunity of
Page 17 of 23
C/SCA/580/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
hearing to the petitioner, did not deem
it appropriate to examine the issue
further and failed to appreciate that
the same amounted to a gross violation
of the principles of natural justice.
(v) The order passed by the appellate
authority also appears to be devoid of
any reasons and, therefore, cannot be
said to be in conformity with the
settled principles governing quasi-
judicial decision-making and the
principles of natural justice.
10. Keeping in mind the aforesaid facts,
following observations from the decision of the
coordinate Bench of this Court in case of
Yamunaben D/o.Laxmiben Muljibhai v. Chandulal
Muljibhai Patel (supra) are worth noting:
“5. Before parting with the present order, a
word of caution to the Judicial Officers as
well as litigants. A judgment is expression
of opinion of Judge or Magistrate arrived at
after due consideration of evidence and all
arguments, if any, advanced before him. A
judgment should be based strictly on the
evidence on record and not on outside
evidence, further acquired. A Judge should
not go out of the record, raise his findings
on matters within his personal knowledge and
conjunctures. Similarly, nothing extra should
be weighed with the Judge and Judge has to
deliver judgment on his own, forming his own
findings on appreciation of evidence and
Page 18 of 23
C/SCA/580/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
considering decisions cited. Similarly, all
judicial functionaries have necessarily to
have a unflinching character to decide a case
with an unbiased mind and an essential
requirement of judicial adjudication is that
the Judge is impartial and neutral and is in
a position to apply his mind objectively to
the facts of the case put up before him. If
he is predisposed or suffers from prejudices
or has a biased mind, he disqualifies himself
from acting as a Judge. In the present case,
opinion of the Retd.Judge of Supreme Court
was produced before the learned trial Court
and learned trial Court while deciding
application Exh.5 has not only considered the
same but he has based his order on the basis
of such opinion. Procedure adopted by the
learned trial Court relying upon and deciding
application Exh.5 relying upon opinion of
Retd.Judge of Supreme Court is highly
improper. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court even a Judge is not supposed to import
his own private knowledge. Similarly, a Judge
is also not required to consider any opinion
which is not forming part of the evidence
and/or even otherwise he has to decide the
case on applying his own mind and on
appreciation of evidence. If he considers
opinion of Retd.Judge of Supreme Court or any
other Judge and decides the case, in that
case, it can be said that he is influenced by
such opinion and his decision based upon such
opinion can be said to be biased decision.
'Justice should not only be done but should
manifestly be seen to be done'. Therefore, in
a case where any opinion of Retd. Judge or
other Judge is placed before him or it is
placed on record, infact it is his duty to
see that such opinion is not forming part of
the record and it is not produced on record.
As such to produce opinion of Retd.Judge of
any other opinion in the judicial proceedings
by any litigant is highly improper and should
be deprecated. If any such opinion is
produced on record, it is to be held that it
is only with a view to influence Judicial
Officer which is not permissible.”
Page 19 of 23
C/SCA/580/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
11. Although the aforesaid decision was
passed in a matter arising out from the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
however the analogy would not deviate only
because the impugned orders are passed by the
quasi-judicial authority.
11.1 Keeping in view the ratio laid down by
this Court in the aforesaid decision and
considering the facts of the present case, this
Court finds that the authorities concerned have
acted in clear and gross violation of the
principles of natural justice. Not only was no
opportunity of hearing afforded to the petitioner
before passing the impugned order, but the order
itself is conspicuously devoid of any discussion
on facts or material placed on record. The
authority appears to have mechanically relied
upon the legal opinion of the learned Panel
Advocate without undertaking any independent
evaluation of the record or applying its own
adjudicatory mind.
It is trite that a quasi-judicial
authority is duty-bound to independently examine
the facts of the case, consider the material on
record and assign cogent reasons in support of
the conclusion arrived at. Reliance upon a legal
opinion may at best serve as an aid to the
Page 20 of 23
C/SCA/580/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
decision-making process; however, such opinion
cannot be treated as a substitute for the
statutory authority’s own satisfaction and
reasoning. An order passed solely on the basis of
such opinion, without independent application of
mind, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
The impugned order, being cryptic and
bereft of reasons, clearly reflects non-
application of mind and amounts to abdication of
the quasi-judicial function vested in the
authority. The requirement of recording reasons
is not an empty formality; it is a fundamental
facet of the principles of natural justice and
ensures transparency, fairness and accountability
in administrative and quasi-judicial decision-
making.
This Court also deems it appropriate to
observe that the principles of natural justice
are neither new nor technical doctrines; they
constitute the most basic and well-settled
principles governing the exercise of statutory
powers. Authorities exercising quasi-judicial
powers are expected to scrupulously adhere to
these principles both in letter and spirit.
Unfortunately, in the present case, the conduct
of the authorities demonstrates a complete
disregard of these settled principles.
Page 21 of 23
C/SCA/580/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
It needs to be emphasised that such
casual and mechanical exercise of statutory
powers not only causes serious prejudice to the
parties concerned but also unnecessarily burdens
the constitutional courts with avoidable
litigation. Had the authorities adhered to the
elementary requirement of affording an
opportunity of hearing and passing a reasoned
order upon independent consideration of the
material on record, the present round of
litigation could have been easily avoided.
Ordinarily, when this Court finds that
an order has been passed in violation of the
principles of natural justice, the Court refrains
from entering into the merits of the controversy
and remits the matter to the competent authority
for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
The present case is no exception. Authorities
entrusted with quasi-judicial powers are,
therefore, expected to bear in mind that strict
adherence to the principles of natural justice is
indispensable for maintaining fairness in
administrative action and for preventing
unnecessary wastage of precious judicial time.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion and
reasons recorded hereinabove, the present
petitions deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the
Page 22 of 23
C/SCA/580/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
impugned orders dated 31st December, 2025 and 18th
July, 2025 are hereby quashed and set aside. The
matters are remanded to the competent authority
for fresh consideration. The said authority shall
reconsider the applications preferred by the
respective petitioners seeking regularisation,
strictly in accordance with law and after
affording due opportunity of hearing to the
concerned parties, and shall pass a reasoned
order in conformity with the principles of
natural justice.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
ANUP
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANUP VYOMESH PARIKH(HC00956), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 16/03/2026 17:14:33
Page 23 of 23
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "natural justice"Sign in to search