Back
2005 Supreme(Mad) 1383
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MARKANDEY KATJU & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN
The Executive Officer & Another - Appellant
Versus
V.K.R.Jambulingam - Respondents
W.A.No.184 of 2005 & W.A.M.P.No.216 of 2005
Decided On : 19 August 2005
The principle of natural justice requires giving the respondent an opportunity to file a counter affidavit and ensuring that necessary parties are heard.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Opportunity to File Counter Affidavit - The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge to pass a fresh order, emphasizing the necessity of giving the respondent an opportunity to file a counter affidavit and ensuring that necessary parties are heard.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a writ appeal against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, arguing that they were not given an opportunity to file a counter affidavit and that the necessary parties were not heard.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that natural justice requires the respondent to be given an opportunity to file a counter affidavit and that necessary parties, including the counsel for the Panchayat, should have been heard.
Issues: Opportunity to file counter affidavit, Hearing of necessary parties
Ratio Decidendi: Natural justice requires giving the respondent an opportunity to file a counter affidavit and ensuring that necessary parties are heard.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the learned Single Judge to pass a fresh order after giving the respondent an opportunity to file a counter affidavit and ensuring that necessary parties are heard.
(This writ appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed in WP(MD)No.2267 of 2005 dated 23.3.2005.)
Markandey Katju, C.J.
This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, dated 23.3.2005.
2. Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the appellants (the respondents in the writ petition) were not even given one opportunity to file counter affidavit by the learned Single Judge. He has further submitted that on the day when the learned Single Judge had disposed of the writ petition, the writ petition had become infructuous, because before passing of the impugned order, dated 23.03.2005, the tender-cum-notice, dated 4.3.2005 was nullified by a resolution of the Panchayat, dated 18.03.2005.
3. At any event, we are of the opinion that natural justice requires that the respondent in the writ petition should have been given at least one opportunity to file counter affidavit. Moreover he was not heard by the learned Single Judge and only Government Pleader was heard. The Government Pleader is the counsel for the State Government. It was necessary to hear the counsel for the Panchayat, which is a distinct legal entity under the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act.
4. Under the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order, dated 23.3.2005 on the ground that necessary parties were not heard and no opportunity was given to the respondent Panchayat to file counter affidavit. We remand the matter to the learned Single Judge to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, after hearing the parties concerned. The appellants (respondents in the writ petition) may file counter affidavit before the learned Single Judge within two weeks from today and the case shall be listed for final hearing before the learned Single Judge in the week commencing 5.9.2005. The writ appeal is allowed. Consequently, connected WAMP is closed.
