1962 (10) TMI 55 - SC - Central Excise

Whether in a writ in the nature of certiorari filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution the party or parties in whose favour a tribunal or authority had made an order, which is sought to be quashed, is or are necessary party or parties? Held that - In the present case Phudan Manjhi and Bhagwan Rajak were parties before the Commissioner as well as before the Board of Revenue. They succeeded in the said proceedings and the orders of the said tribunal were in their favour. It would be against all principles of natural justice to make an order adverse to them behind their back; and any order so made could not be an effective one. They were, therefore, necessary parties before the High Court. The record discloses t ?at the appellant first impleaded them in his petition but struck them out at the time of the presentation of the petition. He did not file any application before the High Court for impleading them as respondents. In the circumstances, the petition filed by him was incompetent and was rightly rejected. That order was made on July 3, 1962; and the special leave petition was- filed on July 18, 1962. Even in the special leave petition the said two parties were not impleaded. Learned counsel for the appellant suggests that this Court may at this very late stage direct them to be made parties and remand the matter to the High Court for disposal. This request is belated and cannot, therefore, be granted. In this view it is not necessary to express our opinion on the other questions raised. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue.
2. Applicability of Rule 101 and Rule 145 of the Excise Manual.
3. Necessary and proper parties in a writ of certiorari.
4. Principles of natural justice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue:

The appellant contended that the Board of Revenue acted without jurisdiction in directing a fresh settlement of the liquor shop. It was argued that neither Rule 101 nor Rule 145 of the Excise Manual applied to the facts of the case. Rule 101 was deemed inapplicable as no license was cancelled for malpractices, and Rule 145 was not attracted because Jadu Manjhi was not a licensee since no license was issued in his favor.

2. Applicability of Rule 101 and Rule 145 of the Excise Manual:

The appellant argued that Rule 101 does not apply as in this case no license was cancelled for malpractices. Additionally, Rule 145 is not applicable as Jadu Manjhi was not a licensee since no license was issued in his favor. The Board of Revenue's decision to direct a fresh settlement was therefore challenged as being beyond its jurisdiction.

3. Necessary and Proper Parties in a Writ of Certiorari:

The respondents raised a preliminary objection that Phudan Manjhi and Bhagwan Rajak, who were necessary parties to the writ petition, were not made parties. The Court accepted this objection, emphasizing that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively, while a proper party is one whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. The Court stated that in a writ of certiorari, not only the tribunal or authority whose order is sought to be quashed but also parties in whose favor the said order is issued are necessary parties.

4. Principles of Natural Justice:

The Court highlighted that a tribunal exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial act cannot decide against the rights of a party without giving them a hearing or an opportunity to represent their case. This principle of natural justice demands that any order made without hearing the affected parties would be void. The Court noted that it would be against all principles of natural justice to make an order adverse to Phudan Manjhi and Bhagwan Rajak behind their back, and any such order would not be effective.

Conclusion:

The Court concluded that Phudan Manjhi and Bhagwan Rajak were necessary parties before the High Court as they succeeded in the proceedings before the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, and the orders were in their favor. The appellant's failure to implead them rendered the petition incompetent. Consequently, the High Court's dismissal of the petition was upheld. The Court also declined the appellant's request to implead the necessary parties at this late stage and remand the matter to the High Court for disposal. The appeal was dismissed with costs.