HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 31655 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Manu Saxena, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5, and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 13.8.2025, has prayed for the following reliefs: “1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.8.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mawana, Meerut – respondent No. 3. 2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Mawana, District Meerut – respondent No. 3, to grant permission to the petitioner society to organize Shaheed Chandrabhan Exhibition from 16th August to 16th September, 2025.” 3. A short submission has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the representation dated 26.7.2025 and the inquiry reports dated 2.8.2025, 4.8.2025 and 11.8.2025, which were relied upon by the competent authority while deciding the claim of the petitioner, were not supplied to the petitioner. In such view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the impugned order has been passed in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 22.7.2025 in Writ-C No. 22372 of 2025 and, therefore, there is no illegality in the order. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Mishra, Devansh Misra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Manu Saxena Shaheed Chandrabhan Smarak Samiti .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. We have perused the impugned order. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the aforesaid representation dated 26.7.2025 and the inquiry reports dated 2.8.2025, 4.8.2025 and 11.8.2025 were not supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner has also alleged in paragraphs 29 to 31 and paragraph 51 of the writ petition that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him, despite the fact that this Court has directed in Writ-C No. 22372 of 2025 that the respondents should provide such opportunity. 6. A perusal of the impugned order further reveals that while deciding the claim, the authority has referred to the aforesaid inquiry reports, but there is nothing in the order to indicate that the said reports were ever supplied to the petitioner or that he was afforded an opportunity of hearing to rebut the allegations contained therein. 7. In such view of the matter, we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained, being in violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.8.2025 is set aside, with liberty to respondent No. 3 to pass a fresh order after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the other stakeholders, and after supplying all materials to petitioner which the authority intends to rely upon against the petitioner. September 11, 2025 Sumaira WRIC No. 31655 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMAIRA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SUMAIRA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SUMAIRA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad