1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/25/2025 Shri R. Chitambram Vs. The Deputy Commissioner and others Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar .. for the appellant Ms. Babita Das .. for the respondents September 01, 2026 [SR] Item No.8 1. The order dated 18th March, 2025 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in WPA/63/2025 is impugned in the instant writ petition. 2. The submission of the appellant is that despite the Court coming to a specific finding that the impugned order of penalty was passed and implemented in violation of the principle of natural justice, erroneously directed the authority to grant post-decisional hearing. 3. It has been submitted that no purpose will be served if the authority is directed to grant hearing after a decision has already been taken by the authority. 4. Learned advocate for the appellant relies on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of H.L. Trehan and others vs. Etc vs. Union of India and others reported in 1989 AIR 568 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that, once a decision has been taken, there is a tendency to uphold it and a representation may not yield any fruitful purpose. Even if any hearing is given after issuance 2 of the impugned order, that would not be in compliance with the rules of natural justice or avoid the mischief of arbitrariness as contemplated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. Prayer has been made to set aside the impugned direction for grant of post-decisional hearing and direct the authority to decide the representation of the petitioner afresh. 6. Prayer has also been made to direct the authority to refund the penalty amount that has been collected from the appellant without compliance of the principles of natural justice. 7. Learned advocate representing the respondents opposes the submission of the appellant. It has been submitted that the appellant was illegally extracting and transporting stone boulders from his agricultural land for commercial purpose. The same is contrary to the provisions of the Regulation. 8. It has been submitted that the Hon’ble Single Judge already granted liberty to the appellant to file a representation and to grant an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 9. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties. 10. Admittedly, it appears that there is nothing on record to suggest that the order of penalty was passed upon providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. It is settled law that any order which infringes the civil rights of the parties ought to be preceded with an opportunity of hearing. The same has not been granted in the present case. 3 11. The Hon’ble Single Judge directed the appellant to make a representation with a further direction upon the Tehsildar to dispose of the said representation within a stipulated period of time by passing a reasoned order after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. At the same time, the Hon’ble Single Judge was pleased to observe that at least post decisional hearing should have been given to the petitioner/appellant before imposing fine. 12. The observation of the Hon’ble Single Judge regarding a post-decisional hearing is absolutely contrary to the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of H.L. Trehan and others (supra). 13. The very purpose of granting an opportunity of hearing will be frustrated if the authority decides the issue with a closed mind. The authority ought to decide the issue in an unbiased manner without being influenced by the reasoned order already passed prior to the hearing being conducted. 14. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the observation of the Hon’ble Single Judge regarding grant of post-decisional hearing is liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside. 15. It will be open for the respondent authority to take steps in the matter strictly, in accordance with law and upon compliance of the principle of natural justice. 16. The penalty amount that has been paid by the appellant shall be refunded within a week. 4 17. It is only after the penalty amount deposited by the appellant is refunded, the authority may proceed with the matter. 18. The appeal stands disposed of. 19. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. ( Amrita Sinha, J. ) ( Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)