Chief Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 613 felicitously described, “Principles of Natural Justice are fundamental… no man or no man’s right should be affected without an opportunity to ventilate his views… we are also conscious, justice is a psychological yearning.” This echoes what Lord Megarry said in John v. Rees, [1969] 2 All E.R. 274. Lord Megarry in John v. Rees rightly emphasized, feeling of resentment to those who find a decision against them has been made behind their back. These are telling observations.

A distinction between ‘no opportunity’ and ‘no adequate opportunity’ was highlighted in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364 and has also been followed in Chairman, State Bank of India v. M.J. James, (2022) 2 SCC 301.

S.K. Sharma had absolutely no application to present case as present was a case of ‘complete denial of opportunity’, ‘no notice’ and ‘no hearing’ in breach of an express rule.

– Hon’ble Justice K.V. Viswanathan, Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [Civil Appeal No. 4806 of 2011].

State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364 duly applies in facts of this case.

– Hon’ble Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [Civil Appeal No. 4806 of 2011].

Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, (2024) 1 SCC 632 in unequivocal terms observed, “The principles of audi alteram partem could not have been thrown to the winds in this cavalier manner.”

– Justice R. Mahadevan, Basudev Dutta v. State of West Bengal, [Civil Appeal No. 13919 of 2024] decided on 06.12.2024.

_____

“State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, 1996 (3) SCC 364 is inapplicable to present matter which is a case of ‘no notice’ whatsoever. A gross violation of the principle of audi alteram partem is noticed. Court is not able to endorse the opinion rendered by Justice J.K. Maheshwari.”

– Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [Civil Appeal No. 4806 of 2011] decided on 29.01.2025.