THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus MOHAMMAD NOOH

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 595 · Decided: 30-09-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
595 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
u~ 
MOHAMMAD NOOH 
(S. R. DAS, c. J., VENKATARAMA AYYAR, JAFER IMAM, 
A. K. SARKAR and VIVIAN BosE, JJ.) 
Certiorari, writ of-Principles governing issue-Avail-
ability of alternative remedy by appeal, if ~ bar-Depart-
mental enquiry-Violat.ion of principles of natural justice 
-Presiding· officer himself a witness-Order of dismissal 
made previous to the Constitution-Revision disallowed 
after the Constitutio~uch order, if can be quashed-
C0nstitution of India, Art. 226. 
A departmental enquiry against the respondent, a Head 
Constable, was held by the District Superintendent of 
Police. During the enquiry the District Superintendent of 
Police himself became a witness and gave evidence at two 
stages against the respondent, his statement being ·recorded 
by a Deputy Superindendent of Police. The District Super-
intendent of Police then found the respondent guilty and 
on April 201 1948, passed an order of dismissal against him. 
The respondent went up in appeal to the Deputy Inspector 
General of Police but the appeal was dismissed on May 7, 
· 1949, The respondent then filed a revision applic:ltion to 
the Inspector General of Police which was also dismissed 
on April 22, 1950. Thereupon, the respondent filed a writ 
petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High 
Court praying for the setting aside of the order of dismissal. 
The High Court held that the rules of natural justice and 
fair-play had been d.isregarded and accordingly, quashed 
the proceedings and set aside the three several orders. The 
State obtained a certificate of fitness and apj>ealed. 
Held, (per curiam) that the District Superintendent of 
:Police who had acted both as the judge and as a witness 
· had disqualified himself from presiding over the enquiry. 
Tlle procedure adopted was contrary to the rules of natural 
justice and fair-play. Decisions and orders based on such 
procedure are invalid and not binding. 
There is no rule with regard to certiorari, as there is 
with . mandamus, that it will lie only where there is no 
other equally effective remedy. The existence of another 
adequate remedy may be taken into eonsideration in the 
exercise of the discretion. If an inferior Court or tribunal 
of first instance -acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it 
or contrary to the rules. of natural justice, the superior 
Court may quite properly issue a writ of certiorari to 
correct the error, even if an appeal to another inferior 
Court or tribunal was available, whether recourse was or 
·was not had to it. This would be so all the more in the 
case of departmental tribunals composed of persons with-
out adequate legal training and background. 
76 
1951 
S•ptemh•r 30. 
1957 
The State of 
Uttar Pradesh 
v. 
Al o/Jau1111ad Noolt 
Da~ C.J. 
596 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1958} 
Janardan Reddy v. The State of Hyderabad, (1951) 
S.C.R. 344 refe.rred to. King v. Postmaster-General, Exparte 
Carmichael (1928) I K.B. 291; Rex v. Wandsworths Justices, 
Exparte Read, (1942) I K.B. 281; Khurshed Modi v. Rent 
ControUer, Bombay, A.l.R. (1947) 
Born. 46; 
Assistant 
Collector of Customs v. Soorajmull Nagarmull, (1952) 56 
C.W .N. 453 relied on .. 
Held, (per S. R. Das,. C. J., Venkatarama Ayyar, Jafer 
Imam and Sarkar, J. · Bo!le J., dessenting) that Art. 226 
of the Constitution is not retrospective and the High Court 
could not exercise its powers under Art. 226 to quash the 
order of dismissal passed before the commencemtmt of 
the Constitution. It is wrong to say that the order of dis-
missal passed on April 20, 1948, merged in the order in 
the appeal dated May 7, 1949, and the two orders ·merged 
in the order in the revision dated April 22, 1950, or that the 
original order of dismissal became final only on the pass-
ing of the order in revision. The original order of dismis-
sal was operative on its own strength. 
Per 8ose, J.-The High Court had jurisdiction to quash 
all the orders, as the proceedings should be regarded as 
still pendi!lg till the order in revision was passed on April 
22, 1950. Tile District Superintendent of Police was acting 
in a judicial capacity and was bound to observe principles 
of natural justice. These principles he ignored. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
130 of 1956. 
· 
Appeal from the judgement and decree. dated the 
10th March, 1952, of the Allahabad High Court in Civil 
Writ No. 737 of 1951. 
G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.