Abhishek Kumar Singh Vs. G. Pattanaik [June 03, 2021]

CITATION	[2021] 5 S.C.R. 305
DATE OF JUDGMENT	3rd June 2021
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Abhishek Kumar Singh
RESPONDENT	G. Pattanaik
BENCH	Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar

Introduction

In Abhishek Kumar Singh v. G. Pattanaik & Ors., the Supreme Court had to consider challenges to the administrative orders of the Chief Engineer, Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam. The challenge was on the grounds that the said orders violated earlier judicial dicta and principles of natural justice.

Purely, the question was whether the action by the Chief Engineer was in compliance with the direction issued by this Court on 15.11.2018, directing the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam to act in accordance with the directions issued by the High Court in its judgment dated 28.11.2017.

This Court interfered only to ensure that multiplicity of petitions be dealt with consistently and, therefore, issues overlap and were directed to be heard together for the aforementioned reasons.

The judgment was an important one in elucidating how administrative decisions must accord with decisions of the courts, as well as how subsequent proceedings with mixed questions should be conducted.

It also reminds of the Supreme Court’s role in monitoring compliance with its orders and maintaining procedural fairness in the administrative process.

Facts

The dispute involved two significant orders issued by the Chief Engineer of Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam dated 4.12.2018 and 2.3.2020, which were consequences of a Supreme Court judgement dated 15.11.2018.

The earlier judgement of the Supreme Court had directed Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam to follow a judgement of the High Court dated 28.11.2017 in relation to a batch of writ petitions.

This result made the instructions of the Chief Engineer inadequate in the execution of this directive and more legal challenges and litigation from parties whose rights had been invaded.

The appellants in this case questioned the legality of the instructions by the Chief Engineer arguing that they never met the threshold set by the former judgment of the Supreme Court.

The case highlighted the complications involved in the administrative compliance by the judiciary and the requirements of a clear, reasoned approach towards implementation of such directions.

Arguments by Appellant

The appellants have contended that the orders passed by the Chief Engineer are in infraction of their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.

The appellants urged that inasmuch as the respondents, while issuing those orders, did not provide any opportunity for a fair hearing to them, violated the principles of natural justice.

The appellants claimed that, at the very least, on a consideration of those factors, reliance on speculative evidence was totally unjustified and further claimed that the data used to justify the impugned orders was flawed and inadequate.

The appellants pointed out that the acts of the respondents, not only run contrary to the express precedent set by the judgment of the Supreme Court but also amount to willful disobedience of judicial orders.

The appellants had applied to have their petitions consolidated with other similar petitions to have the overlapping issues and grievances determined together.

Arguments for Respondent

The respondents, while disapproving of the same decisions, premised their rationale on the impossibility of weeding out ‘tainted’ candidates from ‘untainted’ candidates in the absence of primary data.

It had to annul recruitment exercise to ensure that the integrity of the examination was upheld in view of the flaws identified in the system.

The respondents urged that individual notices would have been of no avail for the essential data to test the correctness of the result was not available.

Procedural difficulties and improper conduct on the part of the testing agency, they pointed out, having had a bearing on the decisions and course of action they adopted.

The respondents again emphasized that their course of action conformed to the requirement of law and principles of natural justice in the light of what had taken place.

Judgement

The Supreme Court quashed the contempt petitions and the transfer petition with directions that the connected writ petitions be decided by the High Court.

The Court held that the order of termination dated 2.3.2020 was legally viable despite not being preceded by individual notices in view of the facts of the case.

It ruled that the High Court ought to consolidate all the connected writ petitions so that there is an effective and consistent examination of the overlapping issues.

The ruling reaffirmed the principle of procedural fairness within the confines of the problems that made it difficult for the respondents to handle the case.

The ruling was a tactical effort to frame a system of tackling such legal issues and aftermaths by creating a benchmark that can be used to overcome the hurdles that deterred the progress of events in an efficient way without dislocating the principles of natural justice and judicial compliance.

Analysis

The ruling by the Supreme Court identifies that there is a greater need to emphasize procedural fairness and merge overlapping legal issues to make the process of adjudication easier.

By asking the High Court to hear and dismiss petitions on connected issues en bloc, the Court prevented a fragmented resolution and ensured that related cases were decided uniformly. Through this judgment, the Court has at great length explained its concern to strike the proper balance between principles of natural justice and practical exigencies involved in administrative decision-making. The approach in the present case is representative of the Court’s job in ensuring administrative actions conform to judicial directives and laws.

This judgment therefore lays down a precedent for the treatment of such complex cases having numerous petitioners involved with various interrelated issues, while ensuring that judicial administration is not needlessly delayed.

Conclusion

By ordering consolidation of the writ petitions before the High Court, the top court has once again underlined its sensitivity to procedural efficacy and fairness in the handling of overlapping legal matters.

The ruling aims at preventing adjudication on parallel grievance[s] and to consider all issues arising in one proceeding itself.

It also affirms the principles of natural justice and adherence to judicial directions by considering practical difficulties in ensuring judicial directions are followed.

The case also shows the need for a holistic approach to decision-making while making decisions in cases of legal disputes with complex and multi-party issues and related claims.

The Supreme Court’s approach is a precedent for future similar cases, and, through this approach, it demonstrated that there needs to be effective and just handling of the overlapping legal matters both at the administrative and judicial levels of cases.

REFERENCES

1. SCC Online
2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163515102/ 
3. https://digiscr.sci.gov.in/view_judgment?id=Mjg5NjQ=

This Article is written by Nandini Achhra student of Vivekananda institute of professional studies, Delhi; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.