AJAY ISHWAR GHUTE & ORS. VS. MEHER K. PATEL & ORS. (2024)

Spread the love

Post Views: 78

CITATION	[2024] 5 S.C.R. 155
DATE OF JUDGMENT	30 April 2024
STATUES REFERRED IN THIS CASE	Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and Constitution of India
PLAINTIFF	Ajay Ishwar Ghute & Ors.
DEFENDENT	Meher K. Patel
BENCH	Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The case of Ajay Ishwar Ghute v. Meher K. Patel (2024 INSC 353) addresses significant procedural issues within the Indian judicial system, particularly concerning the use of “Minutes of Order” in the Bombay High Court. The appellants, including Ajay Ishwar Ghute, contested the High Court’s decision that permitted the respondents to construct a compound wall under police protection without adequately involving all affected third parties. The Supreme Court of India evaluated whether the High Court acted within its jurisdiction under Article 226 by allowing such construction via “Minutes of Order” without involving all necessary parties.

KEY LEGAL ISSUES

1. Validity of “Minutes of Order”: Whether the High Court’s reliance on “Minutes of Order” (a procedural mechanism) without a formal judicial determination was lawful.

2. Impleadment of Necessary Parties: Whether the High Court erred by passing an order that impacted third parties who were not impleaded in the case.

3. Jurisdiction under Article 226: Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by granting relief that was beyond its scope?

4. Natural Justice: Whether the High Court violated principles of natural justice by not hearing all affected parties?

ARGUMENTS FROM THE PETITIONER’S SIDE

The Petitioners argued that the High Court passed the order without allowing them to be heard, thereby violating their fundamental right to natural justice. It was argued that the High Court’s reliance on “Minutes of Order” was procedurally defective as it circumvented judicial adjudication and impacted third-party rights. The Petitioners submitted that relief granted by the High Court was not sustainable because of the fact it directly affected both the Petitioners and other third parties who are not impleaded in those proceedings. They argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 by granting police protection to erect a wall without proper judicial scrutiny.

ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT’S SIDE

The Respondents argued about the validity of the consent through “Minutes of Order” and stated that it is maintained that the order was upon the “Minutes of Order” signed by all the persons present, which indicates their consent. It was contended that there were no procedural irregularities and that the procedure adopted by the High Court was perfectly legal and well within its competence under Article 226. The Respondents alleged that the relief provided mainly related to the controversy between the parties immediately involved and did not impact the rights of third parties who were not impleaded.

DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, finding it procedurally flawed and violative of natural justice.

The Supreme Court held that “minutes of order” could not substitute for formal judicial proceedings, at any rate when third-party rights were involved. It further held that only the parties to the lawsuit are bound by the “Minutes of Order”; they are not consent orders and before making decisions that can have an impact on third parties’ rights, courts must make sure all relevant parties are impleaded. It is unlawful and must be revoked when orders are issued without taking the rights of the persons involved into account. It was held that as court officials, advocates who prepare minutes of order are held to a higher standard. When adopting Minutes of Order, judicial officials must document their justifications in order to show that they are applying their judgment. It was observed that the High Court judged the matter against the principles of natural justice since it took away hearing opportunities from all relevant parties.
The case was remitted back to the High Court for fresh adjudication, ensuring all necessary parties were impleaded and heard.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JUDGMENT

Reaffirmed the Doctrine of Natural Justice: The judgment reasserted that courts must abide by natural justice by allowing parties affected to be heard before any order can be passed.
Established the Control of “Minutes of Order”: It pointed out the limitations of the use of “Minutes of Order,” ensuring that it does not supplant formal adjudication or affect third-party rights.
Highlighted the Importance of Impleadment: The case highlighted the importance of impleading all parties whose rights may be affected by judicial orders.
Established Accountability of the Judiciary: The ruling will remind the courts to not bypass due diligence procedures and make hasty judgments by procedural means especially in a matter that significantly involves third parties.
Wider Procedural Reforms: This judgment can bring about reforms in the procedural mechanism of the Indian courts through “Minutes of Order” and bring about justice and transparency.

CONCLUSION

This landmark judgment strengthens the judiciary’s commitment to procedural fairness and the rights of all stakeholders involved in legal disputes. By setting aside the order of the High Court and remanding the case for further proceedings, the Supreme Court underlined the need for involving all affected parties in court orders, especially when their rights might be affected. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for lower courts, particularly in jurisdictions like the Bombay High Court, to exercise due diligence in adjudicating cases involving multiple stakeholders. Additionally, it paves the way for more stringent scrutiny of “Minutes of Order,” potentially leading to procedural reforms to ensure comprehensive and fair judicial processes.

REFERENCES

This case study is written by Seerat Aggarwal, an intern in Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or 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 personal.