No One Should Be Condemned Unheard – Especially in a Constitutional Writ: Supreme Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Investigation Order by Bombay High Court

“The High Court disposed of the writ petition without issuance of notice nor hearing the appellants, even though they were arrayed as respondents… the interest of justice would be subserved by restoring the Review Petition” – Supreme Court of India

In a strongly worded judgment Supreme Court of India held that the Bombay High Court committed a serious procedural irregularity by passing an order under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC without issuing notice to the parties directly implicated. The Supreme Court, restoring the Review Petition of the accused, reminded constitutional courts that “justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done,” especially when personal liberty and criminal allegations are at stake.

The Court declared, “Since the appellants herein are aggrieved by not being heard in the writ petition, we find that the interest of justice would be subserved by restoring the Review Petition on the file of the High Court.”

“Constitutional Writ Cannot Be Used As A Weapon Behind Closed Doors”: SC Reinstates Right To Be Heard

The litigation arose when Rajkot Nagarik Sahakari Bank filed Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 1280/2024 before the Bombay High Court, seeking a direction that the investigation into a financial fraud allegedly committed by Ketan Anant Raj @ Ketan Rajpopat and others be handed over to the Economic Offences Wing (EOW).

Although the accused persons were formally impleaded as Respondents 2, 3, and 4, the High Court, on 4th July 2024, passed an order transferring the probe to EOW without issuing any notice to them or giving them an opportunity to be heard.

The Bank had specifically prayed for: “A Writ of Mandamus requiring the State of Maharashtra to investigate the matter fairly and thoroughly either through the EOW or CID and to recover the said amount from Respondents 2 to 4 and any other accomplices.”

Yet, the High Court, without even informing the very respondents against whom these coercive directions were sought, proceeded to allow the prayer.

“The High Court failed to notice that the writ petition was filed not just under Section 482 CrPC but under Article 226 of the Constitution” – Supreme Court

The appellants had initially challenged the High Court’s order by filing SLP (Crl.) No. 12470/2024, which they withdrew with liberty to approach the High Court. When they filed a Review Petition, it was dismissed on 28th November 2024, on the ground of “non-maintainability,” since the original petition was claimed to be under Section 482 CrPC alone.

But the Supreme Court rejected this technical position, finding that the Bank had clearly invoked Article 226, and hence the Review Petition was very much maintainable.

The Court observed, “We find that the High Court has failed to notice that the writ petition was filed not just under Section 482 of the CrPC but also under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

And added emphatically, “In that view of the matter, the High Court had the jurisdiction to review its earlier order.”

“Even constitutional powers must bend to the rules of fair hearing” – SC Restores Review Petition for Hearing on Merits

Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan, speaking for the Bench, set aside the order of the Bombay High Court dismissing the Review Petition and revived it for adjudication on merits. The Supreme Court fixed 1st September 2025 as the next date for appearance in the Bombay High Court and directed both parties to appear “either in person or through their counsel without expecting any separate notices.”

The Court further clarified, “Should the appellant(s) be unsuccessful in the review petition, liberty is reserved to them to approach this Court.”

This ruling reinforces the cardinal principle of natural justice—that no one should be condemned unheard—particularly when the consequences of a judicial order affect one’s legal standing or liberty.

“This is not a case where notice could be dispensed with—this was a matter affecting civil rights, criminal liability, and reputation” – Apex Court Cautions Against Abuse of Constitutional Writs

This judgment is a timely reaffirmation that Article 226 is a powerful constitutional remedy, not a shortcut for backdoor judicial orders. Even if the plea is urgent, and even if the cause appears noble, courts must not overlook the indispensable principle of audi alteram partem. The Supreme Court has made it unequivocally clear—when liberty and serious allegations are involved, notice is not a formality, it is a necessity.

Date of Decision: 18th August 2025