2013 (8) TMI 563 - SC - Indian Laws

Who may Initiate a proceeding - Locus standi - A stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons - only a person who had suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law - the law on the said point can be summarized to the effect that a person who raises a grievance, must show how he had suffered legal injury - Generally, a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, cannot be permitted to intervene in the affairs of others.

Locus standi of respondent - As respondent does not belong to the Scheduled Tribes category, the garb adopted by him, of serving the cause of Scheduled Tribes candidates who might have been deprived of their legitimate right to be considered for the post, must be considered by this Court in order to determine whether respondent was in fact, in a legitimate position to lay any claim before any forum, whatsoever - a third person, having no concern with the case at hand, cannot claim to have any locus-standi to raise any grievance whatsoever - However, in the exceptional circumstances if the actual persons aggrieved, because of ignorance, illiteracy, inarticulation or poverty, are unable to approach the court, and a person, who has no personal agenda, or object, in relation to which, he can grind his own axe, approaches the court, then the court may examine the issue and in exceptional circumstances, even if his bonafides are doubted, but the issue raised by him, in the opinion of the court, requires consideration, the court may proceed suo-moto, in such respect -Cross-examination was one part of the principles of natural justice.

Affidavit - Whether evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872 – Held that:- It was a settled legal proposition that an affidavit was not evidence within the meaning of Section 3 - the filing of an affidavit of one’s own statement, in one’s own favour, cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal, on the basis of which it can come to a conclusion as regards a particular fact-situation.

Respondent had not been pursuing the matter in a bonafide manner, and had not raised any public interest, rather he abused the process of the court only to harass the appellant, the respondent was restrained from intervening in the matter any further, and also from remaining a party to it, and he was also liable to pay costs - the Scrutiny Committee had already conducted an inquiry in relation to this matter, and the only grievance of the appellant was that there had been non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, and the fact that the applications filed by him, were not decided upon - before the submission of any report by the Scrutiny Committee, his application for calling the witnesses for cross-examination must be disposed of, and appellant must be given a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, who have been examined before the Committee - the Scrutiny Committee had already taken a decision, the same being violative of the principles of natural justice, would stand vitiated.