2020 Supreme(Kar) 585

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
Pradeep Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 5266, 5297 of 2020
Decided On : 16-06-2020

Headnote:

Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 - Section 63 - Principles of natural justice - Legal rights resulting in miscarriage and failure of justice – Jurisdiction - Present case is an unfortunate depiction of extremely sorry state of affairs which is rampant among government authorities entrusted with onerous responsibility of performing quasi-judicial functions which when exercised by authorities in utter total and blatant disregard and violation/contravention of cardinal principles of natural justice would not only prejudicially affect a person’s valuable legal rights resulting in miscarriage and failure of justice but would also lead to apathy and erode already fast depleting faith and confidence of masses in administrative and quasi-judicial authorities dealing with rights of parties - Natural justice is a pervasive facet of secular law where a spiritual touch enlivens legislation administration and adjudication to make fairness a creed of life - It has many colors and shades many forms and shapes and save where valid law excludes it applies when people are affected by acts of Authority - It is the bone of a healthy government recognized from earliest times and not a mystic testament of judge-made law - Indeed from legendary days rule of law has had this stamp of natural justice which makes it social justice – Court need not go into these depths for present except to indicate that roots of natural justice and its foliage are noble and not newfangled - Today its application must be sustained by current legislation case-law or other extant principle if not hoary chords of legend and history – Court jurisprudence has sanctioned its prevalence even like Anglo-American system - Dichotomy between administrative and quasi-judicial functions vis-a-vis doctrine of natural justice is presumably obsolescent – Held, Impugned order has been passed without giving/affording any opportunity to petitioners and their counsel as mandatorily required in proviso to Section 63 of said Act – Consequently impugned order which is vitiated not only on account of violation of rule of but also for contravention of mandatory requirement contained in said proviso to Section 63 clearly deserves to be quashed on this ground also - A perusal of order sheet maintained by revisional authority will indicate that while first date of hearing was matters were adjourned on several subsequent dates up on which day it stood adjourned by erstwhile Commissioner - Order sheet also indicates that matters were continuously adjourned on account of revisional authority being busy and pre-occupied with other work - In this context a perusal of impugned order also reveals that while aforesaid officer has referred to all dates of hearing she has conveniently not referred to any of dates of hearing - Instead she notes that next date of hearing was which is completely contrary to order sheet maintained in revision petitions - These discrepancies inconsistencies and contradictions also indicate that impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice - Order sheet also discloses that revisional authority purports to take up matter by making a note as if she has been directed by this Court to take up matter on that day itself - In this context a perusal of order passed by this Court will indicate that revisional authority was directed to dispose of matters within a period of six months - Under these circumstances there was no warrant for aforesaid officer to take up and decide matter itself that too by advancing/proponing cases and without notifying petitioner on ground that there were directions by this Court - Under these circumstances also impugned order is liable to be set aside as being violative of principles of natural justice - Aforesaid discussion clearly establishes that impugned orders are nothing short of flagrant and blatant violation of principles of natural justice - In fact undisputed material on record clearly establishes beyond any doubt whatsoever that there has been utter total open and complete negation of principles of natural justice by aforesaid officer/quasi-judicial authority while passing impugned orders which cannot be countenanced by this Court and accordingly impugned orders deserve to be set aside by this Court - Writ petitions allowed