Courts To Ignore Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice If Only One Outcome Is Possible In Facts Of The Case: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the plea of violation of principles of natural justice is not entitled to be accepted by the courts unless, it is shown in the facts and circumstances of a case that rights of a party have been prejudicially affected."If the facts are such that only one result is possible then even if principles of natural justice have been violated the Court will ignore the same," Justice Sudhir Mittal observed.The Bench was hearing a writ petition, preferred challenging an order passed by the Appellate Court under Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972, halting eviction of the Respondent from a licensed premises after expiring of the license period and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication on the ground that proper opportunity was not granted to her to cross-examine the witness of the petitioner and was also not given opportunity to lead her own evidence.In this background, the Court was of the opinion that opportunity to cross-examine would be an exercise in futility as admittedly, the Respondent was a licencee for a period of one year only. "Nothing material could have been elicited in cross-examination and nothing useful could have been brought on record even if opportunity to lead evidence had been specifically granted. Even before this Court nothing has been averred or argued to establish that respondent No. 1 had a legal right to retain possession after expiry of a period of licence."A notice was issued to the respondent to hand over the vacant possession after one license period, but the respondent did not do so. A petition was filed which was allowed after almost 9 years whereby it was held that after the expiry of the license, the possession became illegal, and the respondent has to vacate the same. The respondent challenged this order which was allowed the Appellate Court. The High Court, while dealing with the question of opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, held that the Respondent's argument is completely misplaced because she was not serious about the cross-examination, and had sought adjournments for cross-examination on over 50 dates. Further, she even failed to file an application for the cross-examination and an opportunity to lead evidence. "Respondent No. 1 is undisputedly a licensee. She has exploited the loopholes in the law to retain possession of the shop in dispute for over 10 years in excess of the license period. There is, thus, no equity in her favour. Zimni orders dated 19.02.2013 onwards show that time was sought for cross-examination of the witness of the petitioner for over 50 dates and, thus, the argument that on 14.11.2019 the matter was adjourned for arguments and no opportunity of cross-examination was granted is completely misplaced. An error in the language is sought to be exploited. Had she been serious about the cross-examination and about an opportunity to lead evidence, an application could very well have been filed for the purpose, but no such attempt was made." Coming on to the question of violation of principles of natural justice, the court placed reliance on State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh and others, where it was held that in cases where facts can be stated to be admitted or indisputable, and only one conclusion is possible, the Court does not pass futile orders of setting aside or remand when there is, in fact, no prejudice caused.Accordingly, it held that the rules of natural justice are not rigid and have to be applied keeping in view the fact situation of a particular case. A party claiming violation of the rule must show prejudice especially in a case where the facts are indisputable and only one conclusion is possible."The "useless formality" theory is clearly applicable in this case because respondent No. 1 could not have elicited anything substantial by way of cross-examination nor could she have led any evidence to protect her possession. The attempt is clearly to prolong the litigation so as to retain possession of the shop in dispute without there being any right to continue in possession. 12. The order of the appellate authority, thus, can not be sustained in law and is, accordingly, set aside."Keeping in view the fact that the respondent has remained in illegal possession for 10 years in excess of the license period, the court found it appropriate to decide the lis between the parties by itself. Under normal circumstances, the matter would have been remitted to the said authority for a fresh decision but keeping in view the fact that respondent No. 1 has managed to remain in illegal possession for over 10 years in excess of the license period I deem it appropriate to decide the lis between the parties here itself. Respondent No. 1 has claimed herself to be a lessee in the written statement filed before the Collector but before this Court, the status of the licensee is admitted. ...

Courts To Ignore Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice If Only One Outcome Is Possible In Facts Of The Case: Punjab & Haryana HC

Drishti Yadav

Tags