Delhi High Court
Indian Council Of Agricultural ... vs Bhoop Ram And Ors. on 8 January, 2003
Author: D Jain
Bench: D Jain, M B Lokur
JUDGMENT
D.K. Jain, J.
1. This writ petition by the Indian Council for Agricultural Research, a government body, is directed against the order, dated 3 January 2002, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, allowing the Original Application file
d by 52 applicants, without issuing notice in the application to the petitioner herein. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has directed the petitioner to complete all formalities for granting same relief to the applicants as was done in the case of
Mahavir Singh (OA No.33/94 decided on 15 October 1997) and by the Apex Court in B. Ravindran vs. Director General of Posts, New Delhi and Ors. .
2. The only grievance of the petitioner is that impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application without even issuing notice to them.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. It is strenuously urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the decision of the Supreme Court in B. Ravindran's case (supra), a similar issue had again come up for consideration before the Apex Court in Director General ESI Corporation, New Delhi and Anr. vs. M.P. John and Ors. , wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court had taken a view different from the one taken in B. Ravindran's case (supra) and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in deciding the application ex parte and ignoring the decision in M.P. John's case (supra). It is also asserted that there are certain factual aspects having material bearing on the issue raised by the applicants before the Tribunal, but these could not be highlighted as an opportunity
of being heard was not afforded to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, while placing strong reliance on the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Pradip Chandra Parija and Ors. vs. Pramod Chandra Patnai
and Ors has submitted that in the light of the observations of the Apex Court in the said decision, the Tribunal was justified in not taking into consideration the latter decision in M.P. John's case (supra).
5. We are not impressed with the argument of learned counsel for the respondents. At this juncture, without going into the question as to whether the dicta laid down in B. Ravindran's case would still hold the field in the light of the decision in M.P. John's case, we feel that this writ petition has to be allowed on the short ground that the petitioner having not been granted an opportunity to have its say before the Tribunal, it is invalid as it was made in breach of principles of natural justice. It
is well settled principle of natural justice that no person should go unheard. It is also well settled principle of law that justice is not only to be done, but manifestly seen to be done. In Maxwell vs. Department of Trade and Industry (1974) 1 QB 5
3, it was said that "doing what is right may still result in unfairness if it is done in a wrong way ". We feel that these observations aptly apply in the instant case. We say no more at this stage.
6. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for consideration of the entire issue afresh, after hearing both the sides.
7. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 18 February 2003, for directions.
8. The writ petition and the applications stand disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.
