HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD v. Counsel for

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Satya Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for respondent concerned and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for following relief: " I. Issue a writ, order and direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 28.02.2025 and 28.03.2025 passed by respondent no. 3 (annexed as Annexure no. 1 and 2 to this Writ Petition) and order dated 28.03.2025 passed by the Respondent no. 4 (annexure no. 3 to this Writ Petition)."

3. The brief fact of the matter is that the petitioners are members of an association called Pashudhan Prasar Adhikari Sangh, Uttar Pradesh, and they are aggrieved by their arbitrary removal from primary membership in the association. By way of present petition, petitioners are challenging the order dated 28.02.2025 and 28.03.2025 passed by respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 4 respectively.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent no.3 and respondent no.4 cannot pass orders impugned in the present petition and cancel membership of 12 members, including the petitioners, without following due process of law. It is also contended that neither any hearing 2 WRIC No. 14289 of 2025 opportunity was provided to the petitioners, nor any incriminating material or enquiry report was provided to the petitioners which became the basis for the removal of their membership, and therefore, the actions taken by respondent no.3 and respondent no.4 are illegal.

5. Per contra, it is argued by learned counsel appearing for the respondent association that the petitioners have been removed after giving show cause notice to them. Learned counsel has referred to the order dated

28.02.2025 in which it was stated that there was a meeting of the executive body held on 05.02.2025, where it was unanimously decided to constitute State Level Disciplinary Committee, and thereafter he referred to the order dated 28.03.2025 in which there was removal of 12 members. Learned counsel for the respondent association could not show that there was any occasion where petitioners were given a show cause notice to respond or had been provided with an opportunity of hearing or any show cause to respond before the removal order impugned in the petition, came to be passed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner rebutted submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent association in the rejoinder arguments and submitted that the impugned order is not in the nature of show cause notice but by the impugned order, the petitioners have got virtually removed from the association without giving any show cause prior to such removal and as such the impugned orders are bad in the eye of law.

7. The core issue arising for consideration in this petition is whether the association has acted in violation of the principles of natural justice or whether the orders issued for the removal of petitioners were passed after following due procedure of law.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for respective parties and having perused the record, we find it to be absolutely clear that the impugned order dated 28.03.2025 is for the removal of 12 members including petitioners. The order refers to the meeting of the executive body dated

05.02.2025 and reproduces the allegations due to which members got removed. The order states that the allegation at the end of petitioners were such that give a valid ground under the U.P. (Recognition of Service Association) Rules 1979 and therefore, the decision to remove petitioners 3 WRIC No. 14289 of 2025 from primary membership is unanimous. Although the order further states that 12 members, whose name was mentioned in the order, could submit their response within 15 days before the disciplinary committee and if the response is not received within that time period, then it will be considered that the removed members do not have anything to say in this regard and the association will take the decision. The order further refers the matter for inquiry and the action on the basis of violation of the U.P. (Recognition of Service Association) Rules 1979 to stop repetition of similar incident in the future.

9. Having gone through the impugned order, we find that the decision of removal was already made without a show cause notice and petitioners were not provided with any incriminating document or inquiry report on the basis of which the action was taken against them. The principles of natural justice mandate that before passing any adverse order, the person concerned must be supplied with the statement of charges and all incriminating materials relied upon. If there is any inquiry report, then that should also be provided to the person against whom the allegations are made and thereafter a reasonable opportunity is to be given to respond to such allegation/show cause/report. Since in the present case, there is nothing on record to show that this mandatory legal principle was followed before removing the petitioners from their primary membership in the association, the decision of removal get rendered unsustainable.

10. The principles of natural justice are the cornerstone of fair administrative action and any decision which results into adverse consequences must be preceded by a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing. The requirement to issue a show cause notice and to afford the person concerned an opportunity to present their case is a substantive safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power in any administration performing public function. It is an established principle of law that any body or association discharging public duties, is expected to adhere to these fundamental principles of fairness and due process. When such an association exercises powers that affect rights or interests of individuals, it is bound to follow principles of natural justice, and failure to do so renders the resultant action unsustainable. 4 WRIC No. 14289 of 2025

11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the bar and have perused the impugned orders. Further, with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we have thoroughly examined the material available on record, and thereafter, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it appropriate to direct Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.4 to provide a copy of inquiry report/disciplinary committee report and any other incriminating material which has formed the basis of the removal of petitioners from their primary membership of the association within a period of four weeks from today. Petitioners shall be provided with an opportunity to submit their response within a further four weeks’ time. Thereafter, the respondent association shall pass a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law considering the response/representation of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible preferably within further period of four weeks.

12. Accordingly, we hold that order under notice shall be taken as only notice.

13. Petition thus stands disposed of. October 27, 2025 #Vikram/- (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Satya Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for respondent concerned and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for following relief: " I. Issue a writ, order and direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 28.02.2025 and 28.03.2025 passed by respondent no. 3 (annexed as Annexure no. 1 and 2 to this Writ Petition) and order dated 28.03.2025 passed by the Respondent no. 4 (annexure no. 3 to this Writ Petition)."

3. The brief fact of the matter is that the petitioners are members of an association called Pashudhan Prasar Adhikari Sangh, Uttar Pradesh, and they are aggrieved by their arbitrary removal from primary membership in the association. By way of present petition, petitioners are challenging the order dated 28.02.2025 and 28.03.2025 passed by respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 4 respectively.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent no.3 and respondent no.4 cannot pass orders impugned in the present petition and cancel membership of 12 members, including the petitioners, without following due process of law. It is also contended that neither any hearing 2 WRIC No. 14289 of 2025 opportunity was provided to the petitioners, nor any incriminating material or enquiry report was provided to the petitioners which became the basis for the removal of their membership, and therefore, the actions taken by respondent no.3 and respondent no.4 are illegal.

5. Per contra, it is argued by learned counsel appearing for the respondent association that the petitioners have been removed after giving show cause notice to them. Learned counsel has referred to the order dated

28.02.2025 in which it was stated that there was a meeting of the executive body held on 05.02.2025, where it was unanimously decided to constitute State Level Disciplinary Committee, and thereafter he referred to the order dated 28.03.2025 in which there was removal of 12 members. Learned counsel for the respondent association could not show that there was any occasion where petitioners were given a show cause notice to respond or had been provided with an opportunity of hearing or any show cause to respond before the removal order impugned in the petition, came to be passed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner rebutted submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent association in the rejoinder arguments and submitted that the impugned order is not in the nature of show cause notice but by the impugned order, the petitioners have got virtually removed from the association without giving any show cause prior to such removal and as such the impugned orders are bad in the eye of law.

7. The core issue arising for consideration in this petition is whether the association has acted in violation of the principles of natural justice or whether the orders issued for the removal of petitioners were passed after following due procedure of law.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for respective parties and having perused the record, we find it to be absolutely clear that the impugned order dated 28.03.2025 is for the removal of 12 members including petitioners. The order refers to the meeting of the executive body dated

05.02.2025 and reproduces the allegations due to which members got removed. The order states that the allegation at the end of petitioners were such that give a valid ground under the U.P. (Recognition of Service Association) Rules 1979 and therefore, the decision to remove petitioners 3 WRIC No. 14289 of 2025 from primary membership is unanimous. Although the order further states that 12 members, whose name was mentioned in the order, could submit their response within 15 days before the disciplinary committee and if the response is not received within that time period, then it will be considered that the removed members do not have anything to say in this regard and the association will take the decision. The order further refers the matter for inquiry and the action on the basis of violation of the U.P. (Recognition of Service Association) Rules 1979 to stop repetition of similar incident in the future.

9. Having gone through the impugned order, we find that the decision of removal was already made without a show cause notice and petitioners were not provided with any incriminating document or inquiry report on the basis of which the action was taken against them. The principles of natural justice mandate that before passing any adverse order, the person concerned must be supplied with the statement of charges and all incriminating materials relied upon. If there is any inquiry report, then that should also be provided to the person against whom the allegations are made and thereafter a reasonable opportunity is to be given to respond to such allegation/show cause/report. Since in the present case, there is nothing on record to show that this mandatory legal principle was followed before removing the petitioners from their primary membership in the association, the decision of removal get rendered unsustainable.

10. The principles of natural justice are the cornerstone of fair administrative action and any decision which results into adverse consequences must be preceded by a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing. The requirement to issue a show cause notice and to afford the person concerned an opportunity to present their case is a substantive safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power in any administration performing public function. It is an established principle of law that any body or association discharging public duties, is expected to adhere to these fundamental principles of fairness and due process. When such an association exercises powers that affect rights or interests of individuals, it is bound to follow principles of natural justice, and failure to do so renders the resultant action unsustainable. 4 WRIC No. 14289 of 2025

11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the bar and have perused the impugned orders. Further, with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we have thoroughly examined the material available on record, and thereafter, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it appropriate to direct Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.4 to provide a copy of inquiry report/disciplinary committee report and any other incriminating material which has formed the basis of the removal of petitioners from their primary membership of the association within a period of four weeks from today. Petitioners shall be provided with an opportunity to submit their response within a further four weeks’ time. Thereafter, the respondent association shall pass a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law considering the response/representation of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible preferably within further period of four weeks.

12. Accordingly, we hold that order under notice shall be taken as only notice.

13. Petition thus stands disposed of. October 27, 2025 #Vikram/- (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)