1. Writ petitions challenging appointments in a cooperative federation — Inquiry under Section 65, Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 — High Court setting aside appointments. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1148
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N.Kirpal : S.R.Babu
A.M.S.Sushanth
Versus
M.Sujatha
Case No. : 5734 , 5743 of 1999
Date of Decision : 10/4/99
The court held that the principles of natural justice require that any person adversely affected by a court order must be given an opportunity to be heard, and appointments cannot be set aside if the affected individuals were not impleaded as parties to the proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 - Section 65 - Principles of Natural Justice - Appointments set aside by High Court - Persons adversely affected not impleaded as parties - Opportunity of being heard not provided - Order setting aside appointments without hearing affected parties is unsustainable - High Court should have considered the inquiry report on its merits. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
Writ petitions were filed challenging selections and appointments in a cooperative federation. An inquiry conducted under the relevant statutory provision revealed that appointments were made in violation of statutory provisions and rules. Based on this report, the High Court set aside the resolution of the Board and the notification, declaring all appointments illegal. However, the individuals whose appointments were set aside were not impleaded as party-respondents, and no opportunity was provided to them to be heard.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the High Court erred in setting aside appointments of persons who were not impleaded as parties. The principles of natural justice demand that any person who is going to be adversely affected by an order should have had an opportunity of being heard. Furthermore, the High Court should have considered the inquiry report on its merits before accepting it.
Issues: Whether the High Court could legally set aside appointments of individuals who were not impleaded as parties and were not given an opportunity to be heard.
Ratio Decidendi: The principles of natural justice require that any person who is going to be adversely affected by a judicial order must be given an opportunity to be heard. An order cannot be passed against parties not impleaded in the proceedings.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to High Court's decision setting aside appointments without impleading affected parties or providing an opportunity to be heard. (Para 4 )
3. High Court violated natural justice by setting aside appointments without impleading affected persons or evaluating the statutory inquiry report on its merits. (Para 4 )
4. Principles of natural justice require that any person adversely affected by a judicial order must be given an opportunity to be heard. (Para 4 )
5. Appeals allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Remanded for fresh hearing after providing opportunity to affected parties. (Para 5 )
6. Does the principle of natural justice apply to persons whose appointments are set aside in a writ petition?
Yes, the principles of natural justice demand that any person who is going to be adversely affected by a court order should have had an opportunity of being heard. (Para 4 )
7. Can a court set aside appointments based on an inquiry report without impleading the appointed individuals?
No, setting aside appointments without impleading the affected persons as party-respondents violates the principles of natural justice, as they are denied the opportunity to be heard. (Para 4 )
8. How should a court treat a statutory inquiry report when deciding a writ petition?
The court is expected to consider the report submitted under the relevant statutory provisions on its merits to decide whether the report should be accepted or not. (Para 4 )
(1) SPECIAL leave granted.
(2) THE respondents had filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging the selection and various appointments made in the Kerala State Sericulture Cooperative Federation Limited. During the pendency of these writ petitions, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies ordered an inquiry under Section 65 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969.
(3) JOINT Secretary to the Government, Industries Department, Government of Kerala, who was appointed as the inquiry officer submitted a report. In the report it was, inter alia, stated that selection and appointments had been made in the said Federation in violation of statutory provisions and the rules. The High Court on the basis of the said report allowed the writ petitions, inter alia, setting aside not only the resolution of the Board and the notification but it also declared all appointments made as illegal.
(4) WE find that none of the persons who were selected and whose appointments were set aside by the High Court had been impleaded as a party-respondent. It appears that a public notice was given in a representative capacity only with regard to the appointment to the post of Assistant Sericulture Officer. The direction of the High Court, however, is not confined to that post alone and it is the appointments to the other posts also which have been set aside. This could not be done. The principles of natural justice demanded that any person who was going to be adversely affected by the order should have had an opportunity of being heard. That apart, one would have expected the High Court to have considered the report submitted under Section 65 on its merits and then decided whether the said report should be accepted or not.
(5) IN view of the fact that opportunity to all the affected parties was not given, we allow these appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court and direct the High Court to hear the cases once again after giving full opportunity to the persons who are likely to be affected if the writ petitions are allowed and the report under Section 65 is accepted.
(6) THERE will be no order as to costs.
