JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. An order dated 23.06.2021, by which the appointment of the petitioner as Head Gaon Bura of the Pankar village under Richukhrong Circle, East Kameng district has been cancelled, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner is the senior -most Gaon Bura of the said village and in the year 2021, there was a requirement to fill up the post of the Head Gaon Bura in which the petitioner had participated. The concerned ADC, Sepa, vide a communication dated 01.02.2021had sought for the documents from the petitioner, which the petitioner had supplied and after due verification, the petitioner was appointed as a Head Gaon Bura, vide order dated 10.05.2021. It however appears that a complaint was lodged on 22.06.2021, by the respondent no.6, who is a Gram Panchayat Chairperson and based upon the same, the impugned order has been passed on 23.06.2021, cancelling the appointment. It is this action which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition, as indicated above. 3. I have heard Shri T. Dada, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, AP and Shri D. Laji, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 & 6. 4. Shri Dada, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 23.06.2021 is wholly unsustainable in law, inasmuch as it is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He has submitted that apparently the impugned order has been passed based on a complaint lodged a day prior, i.e. on 22.06.2021 and immediately thereafter, the appointment has been cancelled without giving any opportunity. He has also questioned the locus of the respondent no. 6, who lodged the complaint, who was from a different village, namely Richukhrong. It is also submitted that the respondent no.6 is a Gram Panchayat Chairperson and also a relative to the local MLA and on the behest of the said local MLA, the complaint was filed to facilitate the respondent no. 5 to be appointed subsequently. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the guidelines holding the field, as per which there is a requirement to give proper opportunity before cancellation of any such appointment. 5 to be appointed subsequently. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the guidelines holding the field, as per which there is a requirement to give proper opportunity before cancellation of any such appointment. He has also submitted that his appointment as Head Gaon Bura was duly done by considering all the facts and circumstances and the documents supplied by him. 6. Per contra, Shri Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, AP has submitted that the impugned order itself would indicate that there was certain violation of the procedures and requirement while making the appointment and therefore, the cancellation order was passed. He has also submitted that subsequently in August 2021, the respondent no. 5 has been appointed as the Head Gaon Bura and he is continuing and therefore, if there is any interference at this stage, the same may not be in the interest of the public. The learned State Counsel has, however, fairly conceded that the impugned order does not reflect that any reasonable opportunity was granted to the petitioner before passing the cancellation order. 7. Shri Laji, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 & 6 has endorsed the submissions made by the learned Senior Government Advocate, AP and has submitted that there were gross impropriety and irregularity in the appointment of the petitioner as Head Gaon Bura as done vide the order dated 10.05.2021. He has submitted that there was no public meeting preceding such appointment and the petitioner had collected signatures based upon which the appointment was made. He has also submitted that the complaint was lodged, not by the respondent no. 6 alone but by many others. He has also submitted that the appointment of the respondent no.5 has already been done on 11.08.2021, which is not the subject matter of challenge. He has accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. 9. The petitioner was appointed as Head Gaon Bura, vide an order dated 10.05.2021 and the said appointment was not the subject matter of any challenge. On 22.06.2021, a complaint was lodged against the appointment of the petitioner and immediately thereafter, on the very next day i.e. 23.06.2021, the impugned order of cancellation was passed. 9. The petitioner was appointed as Head Gaon Bura, vide an order dated 10.05.2021 and the said appointment was not the subject matter of any challenge. On 22.06.2021, a complaint was lodged against the appointment of the petitioner and immediately thereafter, on the very next day i.e. 23.06.2021, the impugned order of cancellation was passed. The cancellation order has mentioned certain deviation of the rules in the selection process. It is however the specific case of the petitioner that no opportunity of any nature was granted to him before such order of cancellation was passed. The aforesaid submission has also not been denied by the respondents. 10. The aspect of principles of natural justice is ingrained in the justice dispensation system. In the landmark case of Ridge Vs. Baldwin , reported in [1964] AC 40 , the House of Lords had interfered with an order of dismissal of a constable on the ground of that he was not provided any opportunity to defend himself. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgment has emphasized the requirement of adhering to the principles of natural justice in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings. Certain observations made in the case of Uma Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in AIR 2009 SC 2375 would be beneficial which are as follows: “6. Natural justice is another name for commonsense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified canons. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a commonsense liberal way. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values. The administration of justice is to be freed from the narrow and restricted considerations which are usually associated with a formulated law involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice which has to determine its form. 7. The expressions "natural justice" and "legal justice" do not present a water-tight classification. It is the substance of justice which is to be secured by both, and whenever legal justice fails to achieve this solemn purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal justice. Natural justice relieves legal justice from unnecessary technicality, grammatical pedantry or logical prevarication. It supplies the omissions of a formulated law. As Lord Buckmaster said, no form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigants' defence. 8. Natural justice relieves legal justice from unnecessary technicality, grammatical pedantry or logical prevarication. It supplies the omissions of a formulated law. As Lord Buckmaster said, no form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigants' defence. 8. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. When the historic document was made at Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way into the "Magna Carta". The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to "vocate, interrogate and adjudicate". In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works [(1863) 143 ER 414], the principle was thus stated: ‘Even God did not pass a sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his defence. "Adam" says God, "where art thou? hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat’.” 12. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised many other issues including questioning the locus of the respondent no. 6 to lodge the complaint, this Court is of the opinion that on the sole ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, the impugned order of cancellation dated 23.06.2021 cannot be sustained. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised many other issues including questioning the locus of the respondent no. 6 to lodge the complaint, this Court is of the opinion that on the sole ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, the impugned order of cancellation dated 23.06.2021 cannot be sustained. At this stage, this Court has also considered the submissions advanced by the learned State Counsel that in the meantime, sufficient time has elapsed since the appointment of the respondent no. 5 which was in the year 2021. He has also reiterated that the said order of appointment dated 11.08.2021 is not the specific subject matter of challenge. 13. This Court is however of the opinion that the order of appointment of the respondent no. 5 being consequential to the cancellation order which has been impugned in this proceeding, a subsequent challenge is not essential. At the same time, balancing the equities and also keeping in view the interest of the public, this Court, while interfering with the impugned order dated 23.06.2021, remands the matter back to the concerned Deputy Commissioner, East Kameng district to re-do the selection process for selecting the post of Head Gaon Bura amongst the petitioner and the respondent no.5. Such selection has to be done strictly in accordance with law and without being influenced by any other extraneous factors. 14. The aforesaid process, as directed above, be undertaken and completed expeditiously and preferably within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order to ensure smooth functioning. In the interest of public, it is also directed that till such decision is taken, the respondent no.5 be allowed to continue as Head Gaon Bura and such continuation will be dependent on the outcome of the selection process. 15. The writ petition stands allowed in the manner indicated above.