Existing User Account
Subscribe Premium

Court May Refuse Relief For Breach Of Principles Of Natural Justice Where No 'Real Prejudice' Is Caused To Affected Party: Allahabad HC Reiterates

Shivang

9 March 2022 8:00 AM GMT

    • Court May Refuse Relief For Breach Of Principles Of Natural Justice Where No Real Prejudice Is Caused To Affected Party: Allahabad HC Reiterates

    The Allahabad High Court, sitting in Lucknow, has reiterated that a Court, in exercise of its discretion, may refuse relief in a case where there has been a breach of principles of natural justice, if it is of the opinion that no "real prejudice" is caused to the affected party."Natural justice is a flexible tool in the hands of the judiciary to reach out in fit cases to remedy injustice....

    The Allahabad High Court, sitting in Lucknow, has reiterated that a Court, in exercise of its discretion, may refuse relief in a case where there has been a breach of principles of natural justice, if it is of the opinion that no "real prejudice" is caused to the affected party.

    "Natural justice is a flexible tool in the hands of the judiciary to reach out in fit cases to remedy injustice. The breach of the audi alteram partem rule cannot by itself, without more, lead to the conclusion that prejudice is thereby caused," the bench comprising Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Jaspreet Singh reiterated.

    Infraction Of Rules Of Natural Justice By Itself Doesn't Invalidate Proceedings Unless Prejudice Is Caused: SC

    Further, relying on a catena of precedents in this regard, the Bench culled out the following:

    (1) The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognised by all civilised 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 (Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy, (2005) 6 SCC 321).

    (2) While applying the rule of audi alteram partem (the primary principle of natural justice) the Court/Tribunal/Authority must always bear in mind the ultimate and overriding objective underlying the said rule, viz., to ensure a fair hearing and to ensure that there is no failure of justice (State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364).

    (3) Where procedural and/or substantive provisions of law embody the principles of natural justice, their infraction per se does not lead to invalidity of the orders passed. Prejudice must be caused to the litigant, except in the case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest, but also in public interest (State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar and others).

    (4) The "prejudice" exception must be more than a mere apprehension or even a reasonable suspicion of a litigant. It should exist as a matter of fact, or be based upon a definite inference of likelihood of prejudice flowing from the non-observance of natural justice (State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar and others).

    (5) When on the question of facts there was no dispute, no real prejudice has been caused to a party aggrieved by an order, by absence of any formal opportunity of cross-examination per se does not invalidate or vitiate the decision arrived at fairly (K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India (1984) 1 SCC 43).

    (6) Prejudice must not merely be the apprehension of a litigant, but should be a definite inference of the likelihood of prejudice flowing from the refusal to follow natural justice (Union of India v. Alok Kumar, (2010) 5 SCC 349).

    The Court was dealing with an intra-court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 against an order of the Single Judge in writ jurisdiction.

    The Appellant was aggrieved by the order of Single Judge which set aside the decision of Deputy Registrar (Firms, Societies and Chit, Lucknow) thereby setting aside Appellant's membership in Shri Saraswati Vidyalaya Samiti.

    The Deputy registrar had passed an order dated 07.12.2018 upholding the list of the members of the society which included the names of the present appellants. This order came to be challenged before the High Court, which found that the Deputy Registrar had not considered the version of the respondents herein and also did not consider the documentary evidence.

    Hence, without entering into the merits, it had set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar and directed him to consider the issue of membership afresh.
    The Appellants herein contended that the impugned order was passed without affording them any opportunity of hearing and they were not even impleaded as parties in the writ petition.
    The Respondents on the other hand argued that the issue regarding the membership has not been finally decided and the matter has been remitted to the Deputy Registrar for its fresh consideration, hence, in absence of any final decision, at this stage, it cannot be said that the appellants have been prejudiced.
    Findings
    The High Court noted that the question regarding the membership is primarily a question of fact which requires scrutiny of documents, resolutions and other piece of evidence. However, the order passed by the Deputy Registrar was without considering the relevant documents before it.
    Thus, it held that the matter was rightly remitted back to be decided afresh after affording opportunity to the parties concerned.

    Further, it noted that the appellants herein were not heard nor they participated before the Deputy Registrar at the time of passing of the order dated 07.12.2018. Nevertheless, the issue of membership is open before the Deputy Registrar and the appellants being 'the party concerned' have a right to appear and raise all their contentions before the said authority.

    Thus, the Court opined,

    "The appellants being covered by the phrase "parties concerned" as used by the learned Single Judge have full rights to appear before the said authority and furnish all its documents and evidence in order to establish their membership which shall be considered by the authority concerned. In view of the aforesaid, the Court is of the considered view that no real prejudice has been caused to the appellants."

    Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

    Case Title: Durgawati Singh and others v. Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits Lucknow and others
    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 101

    Click Here To Read/Download Order


    Tags
    Allahabad High Court#Chief Justice Rajesh BindalJustice Jaspreet SinghPrinciple of natural justiceTest of Real Prejudice
    Next Story
    X