Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Upekshit Samaj Kalyan Samitee and the Head Mistress of Priyadarshini Kanya Vidyalaya, challenged three orders of the School Tribunal: (1) the order dated 23/3/2004 directing the appeal to proceed ex parte against them; (2) the order dated 22/1/2007 deciding preliminary issues; and (3) the final judgment and order dated 15/7/2010 allowing the appeal filed by respondent no.1, Shivdas Patiram Ramteke. The principal ground was that the final judgment was passed without affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. The petitioners had filed an application on 26/9/2007 to set aside the ex parte order dated 23/3/2004, which was served on respondent no.1, who filed a reply. However, the School Tribunal kept the application pending for nearly three years and rejected it on 1/7/2010, immediately posting the appeal for judgment on 15/7/2010. The High Court held that it was incumbent on the Tribunal to decide the application before proceeding further, and the failure to do so violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned judgment and order dated 15/7/2010 and remitted the matter back to the School Tribunal for fresh hearing after deciding the application for setting aside the ex parte order. The writ petition was allowed in those terms.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Right to be Heard - School Tribunal - The School Tribunal failed to decide the petitioners' application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 23/3/2004, which was filed on 26/9/2007, and kept it pending until 1/7/2010, when it was rejected and the appeal was posted for judgment on 15/7/2010. The High Court held that the Tribunal ought to have decided the application before proceeding with the appeal, and the failure to do so resulted in a violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned judgment was quashed and the matter remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh hearing after deciding the application. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the School Tribunal's final judgment dated 15/7/2010 is sustainable when the petitioners' application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 23/3/2004 was kept pending for three years and rejected only on 1/7/2010, just before the judgment was pronounced, thereby denying the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned judgment and order dated 15/7/2010 passed by the School Tribunal, and remitted the matter back to the School Tribunal for fresh hearing after deciding the application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 23/3/2004. Rule made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- right to be heard
- setting aside ex parte order
- duty of tribunal to decide pending applications before final judgment
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (07) 107
WRIT PETITION NO.187 OF 2011
Mr. M.I.Dhatrak for petitioners, Mr. P.N.Shende for respondent no.1, Mr. A.D.Sonak, Addl.Govt.Pleader for respondent no.2
Upekshit Samaj Kalyan Samitee, Ballarpur through its Secretary Smt.Sushma w/o Vasant Maheshakar and Head Mistress, Priyadarshini Kanya Vidyalaya, Dhanora
Shivdas s/o Patiram Ramteke and The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders of the School Tribunal.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to quash the orders dated 23/3/2004 (ex parte direction), 22/1/2007 (preliminary issues), and 15/7/2010 (final judgment allowing the appeal) passed by the School Tribunal.
Filing Reason
The petitioners alleged that the final judgment was passed without affording them an opportunity of hearing, as their application for setting aside the ex parte order was kept pending and rejected just before the judgment.
Previous Decisions
The School Tribunal had passed an ex parte order on 23/3/2004, decided preliminary issues on 22/1/2007, and allowed the appeal of respondent no.1 on 15/7/2010.
Issues
Whether the School Tribunal's final judgment dated 15/7/2010 is sustainable when the petitioners' application for setting aside the ex parte order was not decided before the final hearing?
Whether the failure to decide the application for setting aside the ex parte order amounts to a violation of natural justice?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the School Tribunal kept their application for setting aside the ex parte order pending for three years and rejected it on 1/7/2010, immediately posting the appeal for judgment on 15/7/2010, thereby denying them an opportunity of hearing.
The respondent no.1 had filed a reply to the application, but the Tribunal did not decide it until the last moment.
Ratio Decidendi
The School Tribunal is duty-bound to decide a pending application for setting aside an ex parte order before proceeding with the appeal. Failure to do so and rejecting the application just before pronouncing judgment violates the principles of natural justice, as the party is denied an opportunity of hearing. The final judgment cannot be sustained and must be set aside with a direction for fresh hearing.
Judgment Excerpts
In my view, since the application was already filed by the petitioners on 26/9/2007 for setting aside the order dated 23/3/2004, it was incumbent on part of the School Tribunal to decide the said application and not to keep it pending.
However, as the facts disclose, though the application was filed in the year 2007, the same was disposed of on 1/7/2010 and immediately on the next date of 15/7/2010 the judgment was pronounced.
Procedural History
The School Tribunal passed an ex parte order on 23/3/2004. On 22/1/2007, it decided preliminary issues. The petitioners filed an application on 26/9/2007 to set aside the ex parte order. The application was kept pending and rejected on 1/7/2010. The appeal was then posted for judgment on 15/7/2010, when the Tribunal allowed the appeal. The petitioners challenged these orders by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
