LexN.K. PRASADA versus GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A N.K. PRASADA V. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS. APRIL 12, 2004 B [V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 226 and 136-Public Interest Litigation (PJL)-Abuse of process c of Court-Writ petition filed in High Court by way of PJL alleging malfunctioning of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs-High Court found that the writ petition was engineered by a person with an oblique motive to avoid his transfer-High Court found the writ petition without any merits and dismissed it by administering a severe warning to the petitioner- D High Court also imposed exemplary costs on the said person for abuse of the judicial process in the name of Pll--Correctness of-Held: This is not a case where interference of the Supreme Court is called for in favour of the said person-This is a case where the forum of PJL has been abused Article 136-Special Leave--Grant of-Forum of PIL-Abuse of-Held: E In a given case, such as abuse of the forum of PIL, Supreme Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article. 136. Administrative Law: Natural Justice-Principles of-Opportunity of hearing-Non-grant- F Effect of-Held: Despite notice, if a party fails to appear, he cannot be permitted to say that he was not given a fair opportunity of hearing. The appellant was respondent No. 8 in a writ petition filed in the High Court by way of a public interest litigation (PIL) alleging malfunctioning of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. The G High Court found that the writ petition was engineered by the appellant with an oblique motive to avoid an order of the appellant's transfer. The High Court also found the writ petition to be without any merits and dismissed the same by administering severe warning to the petitioner. The High Court also found the appellant guilty of abuse of the judicial process H 1178 ,_ \II ,.- -1 '"' "'- 1111 .- _...,._ ~ ,,.. "' ' N.K. PRASADA v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 1179 in the name of PIL and imposed exemplary costs on the appellant. Hence the appeal. On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the impugned judgment could not be sustained as no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The writ petition pending before the High Court was disposed of on the basis of the materials on record. The materials not only included the affidavits of the parties as also that of the appellant but also the sworn statements of the writ petitioner. [1189-A-B] 1.2. As the finding of the High Court is to the effect that the appellant was the king pin of the entire episode and had engineered the entire game with a view to getting his order of transfer stayed, there is no reason to interfere therewith. [1188-H; 1189-AI 2. In this case the forum of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been abused. [1193-A) Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (2003) AIR SCW 6105 and Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India, (2004) AIR SCW 1494, relied on. 3.1. The principles of natural justice cannot be put into a straitjacket formula. Its application will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. If a party after having proper notice chose not to appear, he at a later stage cannot be permitted to say that he had not been given a fair opportunity of hearing. [1189-H; 1190-A) Sohan Lal Gupta v. Asha Devi Gupta, [2003! 7 SCC 492, relied on. 3.2. The principles of natural justice must not be stretched too far. (1190-CI A B c D E F 4. This is not a case where this Court should exercise its discretion G in favour of the appellant. It is trite that in a given case, this Court may refuse to exerdse its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. ( 1190-D ( Chandra Singh v. State of Punjab, (20031 6 SCC 545 and State of H ,,,,_ ' ~ 1180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R. A Punjab v. Savinderjit Kaur, JT (2004) 3 SC 470, Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. CK. Rajan, 12003] 7 SCC 546, Chairman & MD BPL Ltd. v. S.P. Gururaja, 1200318 SCC 567 and Onkarlal Bajaj v. Union of India, (20031 2 sec 673, relied on. -,, B Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998] 8 SCC 1, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth, AIR (1984) SC 1543, Bromley London Borough Council v. . Greater London Council, (1983) 1 AC 768, International Transport Roth GmbH v. Secretary
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.