HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting.) (Chapter VIII Rule 32 (2)(b) Description of the case. WPM/S No. 673/05 Rajendra Prasad Nautiyal Vs Krishan Kumar Bangwal & others Approved for reporting. Not approved for reporting Date of decision 21.8.2006 Initial of Judge HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition no. 673 of 2005 (MS) Rajendra Prasad Nautiyal s/o Sri D.P. Nautiyal, resident of Deena Lodge Compound, Mallital, Nainital …….. Petitioners Versus 1. Krishna Kumar Bangwal s/o Sri Yashupati Prasad Bangwal, Kirtinagar, Tehri Garhwal 2. Election Tribunal, Bar Council Uttaranchal, Dehradun Through its Members Sri L.B. Gurang, Sri rajendra Kotiyal and Sri Rajendnra Singh Negi 3. Dharmveer Sharma Drong Sagar Road, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar 4. Devendra Kumar Sharma r/o Dina Lodege, Mallital, Nainital. 5. Sukhpal r/o Village & P.O. Bada, The. Pithoragarh 6. Surendra pal Singh Pudir r/o 27 Inder Road, Dehradun 7. Surat Singh negi r/o 137, Lakhibagh, Dehradun 8. Man Mohan r/o 92 /21, Ganga Vihar Haridwar Road, Dehradun 9. Razia Beig Km. 60, Ghosi Gali, Dehradun 10. Surendra Kumar Mittal 7/40 Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun 11. Barahaspati Prasad Nautiyal r/o 5, Cement Road, Dehradun 12. Vijay Bhatt r/o 275, G.B. Pant Marg, Hadwani, Nainital 13. Gopal Singh Mehra r/o Dharam Kunj, hari nagar Haldwani, Nainital 14. Prabhat Kumar Chaudhari r/o 283 Lal Bazar, Almora 15. Lokendra Dutt Dobhal Court compound Nainital 16. Shiv Charan Singh Rawat, 3-A Juyal Flats 39/46 Amrit Kaur Road, Dehradun. 17. Chandra Prakash Agarwal r/o 53, Civil Lines roorkee, Haridwar 18. Subhash Tyagi r/o Near Jain Temple, Jwalapur, Haridwar 19. Bala Dut Upadhya s/o Sri L.M. Upadhya r/o Nainital 20. Yogendra Singh r/o Village & P.O. Bahadrabad, Haridwar 21. Anil Kumar Jain r/o village & P.O. Purola, Uttarkashi 22. Anurag Singh r/o 85 Saharanpur Road, Dehradun. 23. Atul Kumar Bansal r/o Chowk Bazar, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar 24. Bharat Singh r/o Uttaranchal House No. 60, Niranjanpuri, Kanwali, Dehradun 25. Bhuwan Chandra Pandey, 181-82 Tallital, Nainital 26. Bijendra Dutt Raturi, 3-A Convent Road, Dehradun 27. Govind Ballabh Pande r/o C-9 Naini Vihar Mallital, Nainital 28. Gurvinder Singh Court Compound, Tehri Garhwal 29. Harbir Singh Kushwaha r/o Mahant Road, LaxmanChaneli, Dehradun 30. Hari Shankar Counsul r/o P.O. Bhowali, Nainital 31. Harsh Vardhan r/o Court Compound, Nainital 32. Jagdish Prasad Joshi r/o 229, Dehradun Road, Rishikesh 33. Jagmohan Singh Rathore r/o Near I.T.I. Tanakpur Road, Khatima 34. Jaya Thakur K. r/o 18, Engineer Enclave, G.M.s. Road, Dehradun 35. Kishore Singh Bhaskar 140/3 thana Sabiq Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar 36. Kripal Singh r/o V. Sultangarh, Junda Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar 37. Krishi Shukla r/o Shukla Niwas, Nainital 38. Mayank Pandey, I, Raqmeshwar Lane, Near S.G.R.R. Public School, Jhanda Bazar, Dehradun 39. Munfait Ali r/o V.P.O. Paniyala Chandpur, Haridwar 40. Nadim Uuddin Ali Khan, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar 41. Nirmal Kumar Joshi r/o Stoneligh Compound, Tallital, Nainital 42. Prakash Chandra Maulekhi r/o Manohar Niwas Mallital, Nainital. 43. Prem Singh Danu, Court compound, High Court, Nainital 44. Raghunandan Prasad Rturi r/o 113, Chukhuwala, Block 1, Dehradun 45. Rajeev Singh r/o village 44 Sunderwala, P.O. Raipur, Dehradun. 46. Rajendra Kumar Wadhwa 2/1 East Rest Camp. New Laxmi Transport, Dehradun 47. Rajendra Singh Kutiyal r/o Court Compound, Nainital 48. Rajendra Singh Kutiyal, Court Compound, Nainital 49. Rajendra Singh Palni r/o F-4, Vikaspuram, Near Rampur Road, I.T.I. Haldwani, Nainital 50. Rama Kant r/o V. Sahaspur, P.O. Sahaspur, Dehradun 51. Rama Goswami r/o Mahant Niwas 202 Subhash Nagar, Dehradun 52. Raman Kumar Shah Court compound, Nainital 53. Sandeep Bhatt r/o 35, Tyagi Road, Dehradun 54. Shambhu Prasad Mamgain r/o village & P.O. Kandli, Dehradun 55. Shree Chand Maurya r/o 20, Dharampur, Now 11/4 Balbir road, Dehradun 56. Shyam Singh Negi, High Court Compound, Nainital 57. Sunil Kumar r/o Kundan Kung 80-A, Darampur, Haridwar Road, Dehradun 58. Sunil Negi r/o 137, lakhibagh, Derhadun 59. Surya Narayan Babulkar r/o 9, Garden House Compound Head P.O. Road, Mallital, Nainital 60. Swatantra Kumar r/oMubarikpur Alipur Mohammapur Bujurg Hardwar 61. Syed Nadim Khurseed r/o Kapoor Lodge, Tallital, Nainital 62. Tajendra Kumar r/o Line No. 1 Azad Nagar, haldwani, Nainital 63. Taveer Alam r/o Line No. 1 Azad Nagar Haldwani, Nainital 64. Vijay Singh Pal r/o village Deval Chaur, P.O. Manglaur Town, Haridwar 65. Vinod Kumar Agarwal r/o Mohala Lal Bara, P.O. Manglaur Town, Haridwar 66. Vinod Prasad r/o Uma Niwas, Power House, Pauri Garhwal 67. Vinod Sharma r/o Uttaranchal Vidhi Pramasrsh Kendra, Mallittal, Nainital 68. Vipin Kumar Goyal r/o Shravan Nath Gher Moti Bazar, Haridwar 69. Yogendra Singh Village & P.O. Kanwali, Dehradun 70. Bar Council of Uttaranchal through its Secretary 71. Bar Council of U.P. Allahaad through its Secretary. ……. Respondents Writ Petition no. 674 of 2005 (MS) Bala Dutt Upadhaya s/o Sri Lokmani Upadhaya, resident of Panchjanya Bhawan, Mallital, Nainital ……. Petitioners Versus 1. Krishna Kumar Bangwal s/o Sri Yashupati Prasad Bangwal, Kirtinagar, Tehri Garhwal 2. Election Tribunal, Bar Council Uttaranchal, Dehradun 3. Sri L.B. Gurang, Advocate, Member Bar council, Uttaranchal 4. Sri Rajendra Kotiyal s/o Sri R.P. Kotiyal, Member Election Tribunal, Bar Council, Uttaranchal 5. Sri Rajendra Singh Negi, Advocate, member Election Tribunal, Bar Council, Uttaranchal 6. Dharmveer Sharma Drong Sagar Road, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar 7. Devendra Kumar Sharma r/o Dina Lodege, Mallital, Nainital 8. Sukhpal r/o Village & P.O. Bada, The. Pithoragarh 9. Surendra Pal Singh Pudir r/o 27 Inder Road, Dehradun 10.Surat Singh Negi r/o 137 Lakhibagh, Dehradun 11.Man Mohan r/o 92/21, Ganga Vihar Haridwar Road, Dehradun 12.Razia Beig Km. 60, Ghosi Gali, Dehradun 13.Surendra Kumar Mittal 7/40 Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun 14.Barahaspati Prasad Nautiyal r/o 5, Cement Road, Dehradun 15.Vijay Bhatt r/o 275, G.B. Pant Marg, Hadwani, Nainital 16.Gopal Singh Mehra r/o Dharam Kunj, hari nagar Haldwani, Nainital 17.Prabhat Kumar Chaudhari r/o 283 Lal Bazar, Almora 18.Lokendra Dutt Dobhal Court compound Nainital 19.Shiv Charan Singh Rawat, 3-A Juyal Flats 39/46 Amrit Kaur Road, Dehradun. 20.Chandra Prakash Agarwal r/o 53, Civil Lines Roorkee, Haridwar 21.Subhash Tyagi r/o Near Jain Temple, Jwalapur, Haridwar 22.Bala Dut Upadhya s/o Sri L.M. Upadhya r/o Nainital 23.Yogendra Singh r/o Village & P.O. Bahadrabad, Haridwar 24.Anil Kumar Jain r/o village & P.O. Purola, Uttarkashi 25.Anurag Singh r/o 85 Saharanpur Road, Dehradun. 26.Atul Kumar Bansal r/o Chowk Bazar, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar 27.Bharat Singh r/o Uttaranchal House No. 60, Niranjanpuri, Kanwali, Dehradun 28.Bhuwan Chandra Pandey, 181-82 Tallital, Nainital 29.Bijendra Dutt Raturi, 3-A Convent Road, Dehradun 30.Govind Ballabh Pande r/o C-9 Naini Vihar Mallital, Nainital 31.Gurvinder Singh Court Compound, Tehri Garhwal 32.Harbir Singh Kushwaha r/o Mahant Road, Laxman Chaneli, Dehradun 33.Hari Shankar Counsul r/o P.O. Bhowali, Nainital 34.Harsh Vardhan r/o Court Compound, Nainital 35.Jagdish Prasad Joshi r/o 229, Dehradun Road, Rishikesh 36.Jagmohan Singh Rathore r/o Near I.T.I. Tanakpur Road, Khatima 37.Jaya Thakur K. r/o 18, Engineer Enclave, G.M.s. Road, Dehradun 38.Kishore Singh Bhaskar 140/3 thana Sabiq Kashiur, Udham Singh Nagar 39.Kripal Singh r/o V. Sultangarh, Junda Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar 40.Krishi Shukla r/o Shukla Niwas, Nainital 41.Mayank Pandey, I, Raqmeshwr Lane, Near S.G.R.R. Public School, Jhanda Bazar, Dehradun 42.Munfait Ali r/o V.P.O. Paniyala Chandpur, Haridwar 43.Nadim Uuddin Ali Khan, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar 44.Nirmal Kumar Joshi r/o Stoneligh Compound, Tallital, Nainital 45.Prakash Chandra Maulekhi r/o Manohar Niwas Mallital, Nainital 46.Prem Singh Danu, Court compound, High Court, Nainital 47.Raghunandan Prasad Rturi r/o 113, Chukhuwala, Block 1, Dehradun 48.Rajeev Singh r/o village 44 Sunderwala, P.O. Raipur, Dehradun. 49.Rajendra Kumar Wadhwa 2/1 East Rest Camp. New Laxmi Transport, Dehradun 50.Rajendra Singh Kutiyal r/o Court Compound, Nainital 51.Rajendra Singh Kutiyal, Court Compound, Nainital 52.Rajendra Singh Palni r/o F-4, Vikaspuram, Near Rampur Raod, I.T.I. Haldwani, Nainital 53.Rama Kant r/o V. Sahaspur, P.O. Sahaspur, Dehradun 54.Rama Goswami r/o Mahant Niwas 202 Subhash Nagar, Dehradun 55.Raman Kumar Shah Court Compound, Nainital 56.Sandeep Bhatt r/o 35, Tyagi Road, Dehradun 57.Shambhu Prasad Mamgain r/o village & P.O. Kandi, Dehradun 58.Shree Chand Maurya r/o 20, Dharmpur, Now 11/4 Balbir road, Dehradun 59.Shyam Singh Negi, High court Compound, Nainital 60.Sunil Kumar r/o Kundan Kunj 80-A, Darampur, Haridwar Road, Dehradun 61.Sunil Negi r/o 137, lakhibagh, Derhadun 62.Surya Narayan Babulkar r/o 9, Garden House Compound Head P.O. Road, Mallital, Nainital 63.Swatantra Kumar r/o Mubarikpur Alipur Mohammapur Bujurg Hardwar 64.Syed Nadim Khurseed r/o Kapoor Lodge, Tallital, Nainital 65.Tajendra Kumar r/o Line No. 1 Azad Nagar, Haldwani, Nainital 66.Taveer Alam r/o Line No. 1 Azad Nagar Haldwani, Nainital 67.Vijay Singh Pal r/o village Deval Chaur, P.O. Manglaur Town, Haridwar 68.Vinod Kumar Agarwal r/o Mohala Lal Bara, P.O. Manglaur Town, Haridwar 69.Vinod Prasad r/o Uma Niwas, Power House, Pauri Garhwal 70.Vinod Sharma r/o Uttaracnhal Vidhi Pramasrsh Kendra, Mallittal, Nainital 71.Vipin Kumar Goyal r/o Shravan Nath Gher Moti Bazar, Haridwar 72.Yogendra Singh Village & P.O. Kanwali, Dehradun 73.Bar Council of Uttaranchal through its Secretary 74.Bar Council of U.P. Allahabad through its Secretary. …… Respondents Sri Paresh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioners Sri M.C. Pant, Advocate for respondent no.1 Sri Jitendra Chaudhari for Bar Council of U.P. Sri Arvind Vashist, Advocate for Bar Council of Uttaranchal Dated: August 21, 2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri Paresh Tripathi counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.C. Pant counsel for the respondent no.1, Sri Jitendra Chaudhari counsel for the Bar council of U.P. Sri Arvind Vashist counsel for Bar Council of Uttaranchal. By the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 28.6.2005 passed by the Election Tribunal Bar Council of Uttaranchal, Dehradun in Election Petition no. 1/2004 ‘Krishna Kumar Bangwal vs. Dharmveer Singh and others. Briefly stated the election for the first Bar Council of Uttaranchal was held in the last week of April 2004 and there were total 73 candidates who filed nomination papers. The total vote cast in the said election were 4734 and the counting of the same was done from 3.5.2004 to 11.5.2004. After counting of the votes, the petitioners were declared to be elected as a member Bar Council and thereafter notification was published in the gazette. The respondent no. 1 filed Election Petition before the Election Tribunal, Bar Council, Uttaranchal. The Tribunal has passed the following order on 28.6.2005: “;kfpdkdrkZ dh ;kfpdk foi{kh la[;k ƒ ls ‰„ ds fo:)Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk foi{kh la[;k ƒŠ o „Œ dk fuokZpuvf/kdkjh o erx.kukf/kdkjh }kjk fnukad ƒƒ-ˆ- „ŒŒ† dks ?kksf"kr ifj.kke fujLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk fuokZpu vf/kdkjh o erx.kukf/kdkjh dks vknsf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og ,d ekg ds Hkhrj pquko U;k;kf/kdkj.k ds le{k ;kfpdkdrkZ o foi{kh la[;k ƒŠ o „Œ dh mifLFkfr esa iqu%erx.kuk ckj dkWmfly vkWQ mRrj izns’k dh pquko fu;ekoyh ƒ‹‹‹ ds fu;e „ˆ ls …ƒ dks e/;sutj j[krs gq, fof/kfo/kku ds vuq:i iqu% erx.kuk djds pquko ifj.kke ?kksf"kr djsaA leLr ;kfpdk O;; ;kfpdkdrkZ Lo;a ogu djsxkA Against the aforesaid order the present writ petition has been preferred. According to the petitioners no notice was received by them issued by the Election Tribunal to the opposite parties on 16.8.2004. A perusal of the record shows that they were required to appear before the Tribunal at Dehradun Bar Association on 28.8.2004 at 11.00 AM but on the other hand the Election Tribunal wrote a letter on 20.8.2004 to the Chairman Bar counsel, Uttaranchal at Nainital asking them to make suitable arrangement for the office of Election Tribunal. The petitioners have submitted that they reasonably believed that no proceedings are going to take place on 28.8.2004. Thereafter no notices were issued to them. In the first week of June 2005 a notice was issued from the Election Tribunal to the Chairman Bar Council informing them that the proceedings in the election petition No. 1 of 2004 shall be held in Nainital on 17.6.2005 in the Office of Bar Council but no hearing had taken place on 17.6.2005 in the Office of Bar Council although they were present there. Thereafter, no notices were issued to them and the Tribunal has decided the Election Petition ex parte vide impugned order dated 28.6.2005. The short submission of the petitioners is that the impugned order has been passed on their back without affording reasonable opportunity to them to defend their case. Further it was submitted that while allowing the recounting the law of the Apex Court has been ignored which provides that the recounting cannot be made so as to make a roving enquiry in order to fish out materials for setting aside the election alone. Counsel for the petitioners has referred the case Vadivelu vs. Sundaram and others, 2000 (8) SCC 355, wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that recounting cannot be directed on the basis of general and bald allegations. The observations are quoted below: In Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai5 this Court held that an order for inspection of ballot papers can be granted under the following circumstances: “An order for inspection may not be granted as a matter of course: having regard to the insistence upon the secrecy of the ballot papers, the Court would be justified in granting an order for inspection provided two conditions are fulfilled: (i) that the petition for setting aside an election contains an adequate statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies in support of his case; and (ii) The Tribunal is prima facie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties inspection of the ballot papers is necessary. But an order for inspection of ballot papers cannot be granted to support vague pleas made in the petition not supported by material facts or to fish out evidence to support such pleas. The case of the petitioner must be set out with precision supported by averments of material facts. To establish a case so pleaded an order for inspection may undoubtedly, if the interests of justice require, be granted. But a mere allegation that the petitioner suspects or believes that there has been an improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes will not be sufficient to support an order for inspection.” He has also referred the case of M. Chinnasamy vs. K.C. Palaniswamy 2004 (6) SCC 341, where it has been held that recounting should not be made as of right. In the same judgment it has been held by the Apex Court to the following effect: “In Jibontara Chatowar v. Sarbananda Sonowal18 wherein a case was made out that 824 ballot papers were rejected contrary to the provisions contained in Rule 63 of the Conduct of Elections Rules and in violation of the law laid down by this Court in Arun Kumar Bose v. Mohd. Furkan Ansari19 this Court held that the High Court was in error in refusing to direct the re-counting of votes. While making the said observations, the Court relied upon an earlier decision of this Court in T.A. Ahammed Kabeer v. A.A. Azeez20 wherein one of the members, Lahoti, J. was also a party noticing: (SCC p. 663-64, paras 27-28) “27. Though the inspection of ballot papers is to be allowed sparingly and the court may refuse the prayer of the defeated candidate for inspection if, in the garb of seeking inspection, he was indulging in a roving enquiry in order to fish out materials to set aside the election, or the allegations made in support of such prayer were vague or too generalised to deserved any cognisance, nevertheless, the power to direct inspection of ballot papers is there and ought to be exercised if, based on precise allegations of material facts, also substantiated, a case for permitting inspection is made out as is necessary to determine the issue arising for decision in the case and in the interest of justice. * * * 28. It is true that a re-count is not to be ordered merely, for the asking or merely because the court is inclined to hold a re- count. In order to protect the secrecy of ballots the court would permit a re-count only upon a clear case in that regard having been made out. To permit or not to permit a re-count is a question involving jurisdiction of the court. Once a re-count has been allowed the court cannot shut its eyes on the result of re-count on the ground that the result of re-count as found is at variance with the pleadings. Once the court has permitted re- count within the well-settled parameters of exercising jurisdiction in this regard, it is the result of the re-count which has to be given effect to.” In view of the aforesaid the order passed by the Tribunal for recounting without any opportunity of controverting the averments of the election petition, is wholly unwarranted. Further, the election has been declared void and at the same time recounting has been directed, the setting aside of election, therefore, is without jurisdiction. Natural justice requires that reasonable opportunity must be afforded to the respondents before passing any order which effects the right of the parties. No opportunity was given to the petitioners for being heard before passing the order against them. The order, therefore, was passed by the respondent no.1 in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. The Apex Court in the case D.K. Yadav vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd; (1993) 3 SCC 259 has held as under: “It is a fundamental rule of law that no decision just be taken which will affect the right of any person without fist being informed of the case and giving him/her an opportunity of putting forward his/her case. An order involving civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. In Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405 the Constitution Bench held that civil consequences covers infraction of not merely property or personal right but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. In its comprehension connotation every thing that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts a civil consequence. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edn. Page 1487 defined civil rights are such as belong to every citizen of the state of country….. they include….. rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action…. In State of Orissa vs. (Miss) Binapani Dei (1967) 2 SCR 625 this Court held that even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. The person concerned must be informed of the case, the evidence is support thereof supplied and must be given a fair opportunity to meet the case before an adverse decision is taken. Since no such opportunity was given it was held that superannuation was in violation of principle of natural justice. In State of W.B. vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar 1952 SCR 284: AIR 1952 SC 75 per majority, a seven judges Bench held that the rule of procedure laid down by law comes as much within the purview of Article 14 of the Constitution as any rule of substantive law. In Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 another Bench of seven Judges held that the substantive and procedural laws and action taken under them will have to pass the test under article 14. The test of reason and justice cannot be abstract. They cannot be divorced from the needs of the nation. The tests have to be pragmatic otherwise they would cease to be reasonable. The procedure prescribed must be just, fair and reasonable even though there is no specific provision in a statute or rules made thereunder for showing cause against action proposed to be taken against an individual, which affects the right of that individual. The duty to give reasonable opportunity to be heard will be implied from the nature of the function to be performed by the authority, which has the power to take punitive or damaging action. Even executive authorities which take administrative action involving any deprivation of or restriction on inherent fundamental rights of citizens, must taken care to see that justice is not only done but manifestly appears to be done. They have a duty to proceed in a way, which is free from even the appearance of arbitrariness, unreasonableness or unfairness. They have to act in a manner which is patently impartial and meets the requirements of natural justice.” In the case Smt. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and another, AIR 1978 SC 597, the Apex Court has observed as under: “It is well established that even where there is no specific provision in a statute or rules made thereunder for showing cause against action proposed to be taken against an individual, which affects the rights of that individual, the duty to give reasonable opportunity to be heard will be implied from the nature of the function to be performed by the authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action. “In England, the rule was thus expressed by Byles J. in Cooper vs. wandsworth Board of Works: (1863)14 CB (NS) 180: “The laws of God and man both give the party an opportunity to make his defence, if he has any. I remember to have heard it observed by a very learned man, upon such an occasion, that even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence. Adam (says God), “where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded the that thou shouldest not eat.” And the same question was put to Eve also.” The judgment in the case of Menaka Gandhi (supra) has been followed in the case of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission vs. C.E.S.C. Ltd. JT 2002 (7) SC 578, relying upon the case of Mrs. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India & Another, 1978 (1) SCC 248 as under: “The right of audi alteram partem is a valuable right recognized even under the India Constitution. See Mrs. Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India and another, 1978 (l) SCC 248 wherein it is held, the principle of the maxim which mandates that no one should be condemned unheard; is a part of rule of natural justice. We have already held that such right of hearing conferred by a statute cannot be taken away even by courts.” Relying upon the cases of R.V. Camborne Justices (1954) 2 All England Law Reports 850, it has been held in International Airports Authority of India vs. K.D. Bali (1988) 2 SCC 360 as under: “While indorsing and fully maintaining the integrity of the principle ‘Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly be seen to be done,’ it is important to remember that the principle should not be done than it should I fact be done.” Law Lexicon defines “Justice” as under: “justitia est constans et perpetua voluntas just sum cuique tribuendi: Justice is the constant and perpetual disposition or will of giving to every man his right.” The Apex Court in Dinesh Dutt Joshi vs. State of Rajasthan and others, (2001) 8 SCC 570 has held as under: It is a well-established principle of law that every court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae – to do that real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone it exists or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. The principle embodied in the section is based upon the maxim: quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest i.e. when the law gives anything to anyone, it gives also all those things without which the thing itself would be unavailable. Further in the case Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, AIR 1978 SCC 851, Apex Court has held as under; “Indeed, natural justice is a pervasive facet of secular law where a spiritual touch enlivens legislation, administration and adjudication, to make fairness a creed of life. It has, many colours and shades, many forma and shapes and, save where valid law excludes, it, applies when people are affected by acts of authority. It is the hone of healthy government, recognized from earliest times and not a mystic testament of Judge-made law.