9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Error apparent on the face of the record. 2. Contravention of principles of natural justice. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Error Apparent on the Face of the Record: The first respondent, Suwarna Transport Company Limited, argued that the order passed by the Appellate Authority was vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record. This ground was based on the allegation that the Appellate Authority had misread the police report. The Letters Patent Bench of the Nagpur High Court seemed inclined to reject this plea, noting that the language used by the Appellate Authority was ambiguous but not necessarily inaccurate. The High Court observed that the subsequent police report had been considered by the Appellate Authority, which had noted that the police had practically absolved the appellant from all blame except on a minor issue. The Supreme Court agreed with this assessment, stating that an error apparent on the face of the record must mean an assumption of facts not supported by the record. The Court found no such error in the Appellate Authority's order, as the matters referred to were indeed contained in the subsequent police report. 2. Contravention of Principles of Natural Justice: The second ground was that the Appellate Authority had contravened the principles of natural justice by not providing the first respondent with a "real and effective opportunity" to deal with the revised police report. The Letters Patent Bench of the High Court held that the Appellate Authority erred in rushing through without giving a proper and effective chance to the first respondent to state its case. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this conclusion. The Court reviewed the relevant statutory provisions, noting that neither the Motor Vehicles Act nor the rules framed under it required a regular hearing akin to a court of law. The Act and rules did not mandate the recording of oral or documentary evidence in the usual way. The Supreme Court emphasized that the tribunal, while acting judicially, was not obliged to grant an adjournment suo motu without any application from the parties. The Court noted that no party had raised any objection to the procedure adopted by the Appellate Authority at the time of the hearing, nor had any request for an adjournment been made. The Supreme Court further examined several precedents to determine the content of the rule of natural justice. The Court referred to decisions such as Spackman v. Plumstead Board of Works, Board of Education v. Rice, and Local Government Board v. Arlidge, which emphasized that the procedure of each tribunal must be judged in light of its statutory obligations. The Court concluded that the Appellate Authority had acted within its statutory framework and that the reading out of the police report was sufficient compliance with the rules of natural justice. The Court found no justification for the High Court's assumption that the Appellate Authority should have provided a copy of the report or adjourned the hearing. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the judgment under appeal was erroneous and must be set aside. The Court found that the learned single Judge of the High Court had taken the more correct view of the legal position. The appeal was accordingly allowed with costs throughout. Appeal Allowed.
|
