Hari Singh v Haryana 1993 3 SCC 114 - DISMISSAL OF SLP OF CO ACCUSED IS NOT A BAR

Show Cause Notice - Bias

                in Oryx Fisheries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427, while quashing a show-cause notice on the aforementioned ground, has held that:

 

"27. It is no doubt true that at the stage of show cause, the person proceeded against must be told the charges against him so that he can take his defence and prove his innocence. It is obvious that at that stage the authority issuing the charge-sheet, cannot, instead of telling him the charges, confront him with definite conclusions of his alleged guilt. If that is done, as has been done in this instant case, the entire proceeding initiated by the show-cause notice gets vitiated by unfairness and bias and the subsequent proceedings become an idle ceremony.

 

28. Justice is rooted in confidence and justice is the goal of a quasi-judicial proceeding also. If the functioning of a quasi-judicial authority has to inspire confidence in the minds of those subjected to its jurisdiction, such authority must act with utmost fairness. Its fairness is obviously to be manifested by the language in which charges are couched and conveyed to the person proceeded against.

…

31. It is of course true that the show-cause notice cannot be read hypertechnically and it is well settled that it is to be read reasonably. But one thing is clear that while reading a show-cause notice the person who is subject to it must get an impression that he will get an effective opportunity to rebut the allegations contained in the show-cause notice and prove his innocence. If on a reasonable reading of a show-cause notice a person of ordinary prudence gets the feeling that his reply to the show-cause notice will be an empty ceremony and he will merely knock his head against the impenetrable wall of prejudged opinion, such a show-cause notice does not commence a fair procedure especially when it is issued in a quasi-judicial proceeding under a statutory regulation which promises to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of defence.

 

32. Therefore, while issuing a show-cause notice, the authorities must take care to manifestly keep an open mind as they are to act fairly in adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the person proceeded against and specially when he has the power to take a punitive step against the person after giving him a show-cause notice.

 

33. The principle that justice must not only be done but it must eminently appear to be done as well is equally applicable to quasi-judicial proceeding if such a proceeding has to inspire confidence in the mind of those who are subject to it."

(emphasis supplied)

K.I. Shephard v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 431, referred to in the decision abovementioned, it has been held that "… it is common experience that once a decision has been taken, there is a tendency to uphold it and a representation may not really yield any fruitful purpose."

1.                 in Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 33, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:

"9. Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in some decisions including State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [(1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943] , Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [(2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826] and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC 28 : (2006) 12 Scale 262] , but the question herein has to be considered from a different angle viz. when a notice is issued with premeditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In such an event, even if the court directs the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful purpose. (See K.I. Shephard v. Union of India [(1987) 4 SCC 431 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 438 : AIR 1988 SC 686] .) It is evident in the instant case that the respondent has clearly made up its mind. It explicitly said so both in the counter-affidavit as also in its purported show-cause notice."

Probate of a Will: Is it mandatory?

Om Prakash Yadav v. Kanta Yadav
Citation: 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6961
Paragraph 7.
There being a plethora of authorities that in view of Section 57 and Section 213 of the Indian
Succession Act, for Hindus, concerning properties in the Northern part of the country, it is
not necessary to obtain a probate of a will, appellants pleaded that they need not obtain a
probate of the wills and the codicil. As per the respondents Section 34 of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963 which relates to a declaratory decree, did not disentitle the appellants to the
declaration claimed.

See also:

Geeta Tandon v. Sunil Gomber
Citation: 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2067

Kanta Yadav v. Om Prakash Yadav
Citation: (2020) 14 SCC 102

Ravinder Nath Agarwal v. Yogender Nath Agarwal,
Citation: (2021) 15 SCC 282

Misconduct v. Negligence

Misconduct means misconduct arising from ill-motive; acts of negligence, error of judgment or innocent mistake do not constitute such misconduct (Union of India v. J Ahmed, (1979) 2 SCC 286

Courts power if injunction violated or breached

AIR 1975 madras 270

In our opinion, the inherent powers of this court under Section 151 C.P.C. are wide and are not subject to any limitation. Where in violation of a stay order or injunction against a party, something has been done in disobedience, it will be the duty of the court as a policy to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrong doing. In our view, the inherent power will not only be available in such a case, but it is bound to be exercised in that manner in the interests of justice. Even apart from Section 151, we should observe that as a matter of judicial policy, the court should guard against itself being stultified in circumstances like this by holding that it is powerless to undo a wrong done in disobedience of the court's orders. But in this case it is not necessary to so to that extent as we hold that the power is available under Section 151. C.P.C. 

In case of doubt in interpretation of a notification, the interpretation given by the author of the legislation would need to be accepted

NHAI v. Pandarinathan Govindarajulu, (2021) 6 SCC 693

Custody during bail

Manish Jain v. Haryana State Pollution Control Board, (2020) 20 SCC 123 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 676 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1101 at page 123

2. A person released on bail is already in the constructive custody of law. If the law requires him to come back to custody for specified reasons, we are afraid that an application for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest will not lie. There cannot be an apprehension of arrest by a person already in the constructive custody of the law. We, therefore, reject the prayer for anticipatory bail.