2020 (8) TMI 959 - HC - Indian Laws

Principles of natural justice - absence of pre-impleadment notice - Should the Lokayukta have notified and heard the additional respondents before it added them to the proceedings? - HELD THAT - Indisputably Rule 10 of Order 1 of CPC empowers the court to implead a party suo motu if it reckons that the party s presence is necessary or proper. It may be against the wish of the plaintiff the so called dominus litus or the defendants already on record who may technically speaking feel embarrassed with the proposed party s presence. If put on notice even the proposed party may object. But none of these three eventualities deters the court from exercising its suo motu power. More particularly the court usually at the trial stage exercises its suo motu power after going through the record and after concluding that the proposed party s presence is essential. While exercising its suo motu powers the court does not in the first place rule based on any self-serving statement by any person already on record about a party s presence. So notice to the parties on record hardly matters. An individual s every right is subject to the statutory limitations unless those limitations fall foul of the Constitution. Here what is a proposed party s right under the statute? Scrutinised neither Rule 9 of the Lokayuta Rules nor Rule 10 of Order I CPC requires the Tribunal or the Court to notify the proposed party before his addition to the proceedings. Granted the rules of natural justice need not be explicit; they can be read into a statute or a procedure. That is though they do not supplant the law they do supplement it. In Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India 1994 (2) TMI 309 - SUPREME COURT a case that has originated from this State the Supreme Court has ruled that while applying the principles of natural justice the court must remember that they are not immutable but flexible; they are not cast in rigid mould; they cannot be put in a legal straight-jacket. According to Ravi S. Naik whether the requirements of natural justice have been complied with or not has to be considered in the context of the facts and the circumstances of a particular case . In the civil matters a suitor comes to court with a cause and grievance against a person or persons. The court takes the matter on file numbers it and serves summonses or notices on the opposite parties say the defendants. Those defendants may file their written statements or may raise a preliminary objection even before their filing the written statements. That preliminary objection may take many forms. The argument against pre-impleadment notice gains more traction and assumes more force because the Lokayuta as a Tribunal is not bound by codified procedural shackles. It can regulate its own procedure. And when we confine our discussion to Rule 9 its subjection to Rule 10 of Order I CPC is as far as may be necessary. The Code of Civil Procedure has no vice-like grip over the Lokayuta s procedure. It is established that even Rule 10 of Order I requires no pre-impleadment notice. Of course this is only a collateral not precedential observation under the CPC. Conclusion - The Lokayukta s procedural discretion allows it to add parties to proceedings without pre-impleadment notice provided that such addition is necessary for the effective resolution of the complaint. There are no merit in the petitioners contentions. The Lokayukta s order suffers from no legal infirmity including that of violating the principles of natural justice - petition dismissed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary legal question considered was whether the Lokayukta should have notified and heard the additional respondents before adding them to the proceedings. This issue revolves around the principles of natural justice and whether the absence of pre-impleadment notice constitutes a violation of these principles. Additionally, the court considered the extent to which Rule 10 of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) applies to the procedural actions of the Lokayukta, particularly concerning the addition of parties to ongoing proceedings.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents

The legal framework includes the Goa Lokayukta Act 2011 and the Goa Lokayukta Rules 2012. Under Rule 9 of the Rules, the Lokayukta may strike out or add parties to proceedings either suo motu or upon application. This rule references Rule 10 of Order I of the CPC, which governs the addition and deletion of parties in civil suits. The court examined several precedents to determine whether pre-impleadment notice is necessary, including decisions from various High Courts and the Supreme Court.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

The court reasoned that the Lokayukta, as a quasi-judicial authority, has the power to regulate its own procedures and is not strictly bound by the procedural rules of the CPC. The court emphasized that the Lokayukta's actions must conform to the principles of natural justice, but these principles are flexible and context-dependent. The court found that neither Rule 9 of the Lokayukta Rules nor Rule 10 of Order I CPC explicitly requires pre-impleadment notice, and the Lokayukta's decision to add parties suo motu is within its discretionary powers.

Key Evidence and Findings

The court noted that the Lokayukta had conducted a preliminary inquiry and found sufficient grounds to proceed with the investigation. The addition of the panchayat members as respondents was deemed necessary for a complete and effective resolution of the complaint. The court found no evidence of procedural impropriety or violation of natural justice in the Lokayukta's decision to add the parties without prior notice.

Application of Law to Facts

The court applied the principles of natural justice and the procedural framework of the Lokayukta Act and Rules to the facts of the case. It concluded that the absence of pre-impleadment notice did not constitute a violation of natural justice, as the newly added parties would have the opportunity to present their defenses during the proceedings. The court emphasized that the Lokayukta's procedural discretion allows it to add parties when their presence is necessary for resolving the complaint effectively.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The petitioners argued that the lack of pre-impleadment notice violated their right to natural justice and deprived them of the opportunity to object to their inclusion in the proceedings. They contended that Rule 9 of the Lokayukta Rules should be read in conjunction with Rule 10 of Order I CPC to require notice. The respondents, however, argued that the Lokayukta's actions were within its discretionary powers and that the petitioners would not suffer prejudice, as they could present their defenses during the proceedings. The court sided with the respondents, finding no legal requirement for pre-impleadment notice.

Conclusions

The court concluded that the Lokayukta's decision to add the petitioners as parties without pre-impleadment notice did not violate the principles of natural justice. The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the Lokayukta's procedural discretion and the necessity of the petitioners' presence for resolving the complaint.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The court held that the Lokayukta's procedural discretion allows it to add parties to proceedings without pre-impleadment notice, provided that such addition is necessary for the effective resolution of the complaint. The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice are flexible and context-dependent, and their application must be considered in light of the specific circumstances of each case. The court also highlighted that the Lokayukta, as a quasi-judicial authority, is not strictly bound by the procedural rules of the CPC but must ensure procedural fairness in its actions.

The court's final determination was to dismiss the writ petition, affirming that the Lokayukta's order did not suffer from any legal infirmity, including a violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioners were granted the opportunity to present their defenses during the proceedings, maintaining their right to contest their inclusion as parties.