The central legal point established in the judgment is the emphasis on the principles of natural justice and the criticism of the application of strict principles of pleadings or the Code of Civil Procedure in a matter of this nature.

JUDGMENT

M.S.SONAK,J. - Heard Mr. Aires Rodrigues, the Petitioner in person, Mr. Nikhil Pai for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Pravin Faldessai, Additional Govt. Advocate for Respondent No.2.

2. The presence of Respondent No.3 is really not necessary for disposal of this Petition. In fact, Respondent No.3 ought not to have been impleaded a party to this Petition.

3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties.

4. The challenge in this Petition is to the order dated 9/12/2020, by which the Goa Human Rights Commission (GHRC) has dismissed the Petitioner's application dated 9/11/2020 seeking leave to withdraw his earlier application dated 21/7/2020, with liberty to file a fresh detailed application seeking leave to cross examine Respondent No.1 herein.

5. According to us, the application made by the Petitioner was quite innocuous, particularly, since, the application which he had sought leave to withdraw, was an one line application seeking leave to cross examine. In such a situation, the Petitioner could have as well applied for leave to amend his application and normally there would have been no difficulty to grant leave to amend. Instead, the Petitioner applied for leave to withdraw this application, with liberty to file a detailed application.

6. The GHRC has purported to apply rigours of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure when, in fact, it was not at all necessary for it to do so in a matter of this nature. Import strict principles of pleadings or the CPC will, unnecessary encumber the procedure before the GHRC.

7. In any case, we feel that there was no justification in denying the Petitioner leave to withdraw his earlier application and to file a fresh application. Filing of a fresh application will afford an opportunity to Respondent No.1 to meet with the contentions raised in the same. Such an application will also assist the GHRC in determining whether any case is made out for leave to cross examine. Ultimately, the proceedings before the GHRC must be guided by the principles of natural justice.

8. For all the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned order dated 9/12/2020 and grant the Petitioner's application dated 9/11/2020. As a consequence, the Petitioner's one line application dated 21/7/2020 is disposed of as withdrawn and liberty is granted to the Petitioner to file a fresh application, seeking leave to cross examine Respondent No.1.

9. Mr. Rodrigues states that he will file necessary application on 12/2/2021 which is the next date before the GHRC, without seeking further adjournment. He states that advance copy will be served upon the opposite party.

10. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

11. All concerned to act on the basis of an authenticated copy of this order.