Even God Gave Benefit Of 'Audi Alteram Partem' To Adam & Eve, Principles Of Natural Justice Sine Qua Non In Civilised Society: Gujarat High Court
Emphasizing on the importance of principles of natural justice in a "civilized society", the Gujarat High Court recently observed,"the benefit of audi alteram partem principle was even extended to Adam and Eve, even by God before they were punished for disobeying His command. This signifies that even if the authority already knows everything and the person has nothing more to tell,...
Emphasizing on the importance of principles of natural justice in a "civilized society", the Gujarat High Court recently observed,
"the benefit of audi alteram partem principle was even extended to Adam and Eve, even by God before they were punished for disobeying His command. This signifies that even if the authority already knows everything and the person has nothing more to tell, even then this rule of natural justice is attracted, unless application of this rule would be a mere empty formality."
The observation was made while hearing a special civil application, filed by one Viran Enterprise challenging an order passed by a State agency, terminating its contract for maintenance of 'Jan Seva Centres' in Surat.
It is alleged that during the subsistence of the contract, a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner for a false income certificate generation at one of the centres. However, following the reply filed by the Petitioner, an order accepting the clarification came to be passed. Subsequently however, an order came to be passed by the respondents terminating the services of petitioner by forfeiting the deposit and also blacklisting it.
Challenging this termination, the Petitioner averred that no show cause notice or personal hearing was conducted before terminating the services which was in violation of natural justice. Per contra, the AGP claimed that the FIR was registered against the Petitioner who was involved in 'large scale illegal activities' in issuing income certificates. Therefore, the termination was in consonance with the contract.
Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri noted that the impugned order was 'indisputably' not preceded by either a show cause notice or a personal hearing. The Bench opined that one of the objectives of giving a hearing is to ensure that no illegal action or decision takes place.
The principles of natural justice, per the Bench, protect citizens from arbitrary administrative actions. Reference was made to State of UP vs Vijay Kumar Tripathi where it was held that the principles of natural justice should be read into rules. The principles of audi alteram partem are sine qua non of every civilised society. The High Court relied on the latin maxim 'qui aliquid statuerit parte inaudita altera, aequum licet dixerit, haud aequum facerit (he who shall decide anything without the other side having been heard, although he may have said what is right, will not have done what is right).'
The Aligarh Muslim University and Ors vs Mansoor Ali Khan case was alluded to by the Bench to explain that unless the application of the principles of natural justice would be a useless formality, the principles must be applied even if the authority already knows everything. Further there is no distinction between an administrative order and quasi-judicial order and the principles of natural justice are attracted in both situations.
Keeping in view these precedents, the High Court concluded that the Petitioner did not have the opportunity to narrate the circumstances and hence, the impugned order was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Application was allowed and the impugned order was quashed.
It was directed that a show cause notice be issued to the Petitioner which should be replied to by the Petitioner in 10 days. The Respondent was also directed to conclude the proceedings within 4 weeks. The Petitioner was cautioned that it cannot continue or commence activities entrusted to him under the 2021 contract which was subjected to the order of the Respondent authority.
Case Title: Virani Enterprise vs State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 171