2012 (6) TMI 90 - HC - Indian Laws

Indian Stamp Act 1899 - Principle of Natural Justice - appellate order being passed by the same officer who has passed the basic order - Held that - Allowing the appeal to be heard by the same officer who had passed the basic order would tantamount to reducing the appellate jurisdiction into that of review. Also it would violate the principles of natural justice that no man can be a judge in his own cause. Therefore, Commissioner has manifestly erred in law and acted against the settled principles of natural justice by deciding the appeal against his own order passed as an inferior authority.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to appellate order passed by the same officer who passed the basic order.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around a challenge to an appellate order issued by the same officer who initially passed the basic order. The petitioners contended that this practice violated the principles of natural justice, specifically the rule that "no man can be a judge in his own cause." The court examined the statutory right to appeal under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act, emphasizing that the purpose of an appeal is to have a superior authority review the decision of an inferior court or authority. It was highlighted that allowing the same officer to hear the appeal against their own decision would render the appeal process meaningless and akin to a review rather than a re-hearing by a superior authority.

The judgment delves into the distinction between an appeal and a review, emphasizing that while a review involves the same judge reconsidering a decision to correct errors, an appeal entails a re-hearing by a superior court or authority to assess the correctness of the lower court's decision. The court stressed the importance of ensuring that justice is not only done but also seen to be done, quoting the dictum that "Justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." The judgment referenced past legal practices and precedents, including the observation in R. Vishwanathan v. Abdul Wajid AIR 1963 SC 1, which highlighted the undesirability of a judge participating in an appeal against their own decision unless expressly authorized by statute.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the Commissioner had erred in law and contravened the principles of natural justice by deciding the appeal against his own order as an inferior authority. As a result, the writ petition was allowed, the appellate order was quashed, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner's Court for a decision by an officer other than the one who had passed the original order as Collector.