TMI Blog1984 (11) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay mention at the Cutset Act in response to our invitation the learned Attorney General very graciously addressed us and indeed made forceful submissions. We are grateful to him to his valuable assistance. An auction of the right to sell liquor at Rangat, Andaman Islands was held on 15. 2. 84 by the Deputy Commissioner, Port Blair. One B. K. Hariwat was the highest bidder. M/s Samarais Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. having an office at Port Blair, the petitioner before us in the Special Leave Petition, was one of the participants in the auction but not S. Samual, S/o Swami Das Pillai, 12, Cathral Road, Madras, who figures before us as the first respondent. As B. K. Hariwat did not deposit fifty per cent of the license fee as clause 14 of the terms and conditions of the auction, the sale was not confirmed and the shop had to be auctioned again. The second auction was held on 28. 3. 1984. At this auction M/s Samarias Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. was the highest bidder. The bid was for a sum of ₹ 25 lakhs. S. Samuel also participated in the auction A but his bid was just over ₹ 17 Lakhs only. The highest bidder (M/s Samarias Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.) deposited sum of ₹ 10,000, 2,50, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... license itself was to take effect from 1. 4. 1984. What was to happen to the amount already deposited ? Who was to run the liquor shop from 1. 4. 1994 ? What security had been taken from the petitioner to protect the revenue and the other respondents '? We get no indication from the order. In fact the order made no provision to protect any one from any resulting mischief. And all this on an oral undertaking given by an advocate that a petition would be filed on behalf of a party whose very existence we now find is doubtful, as we shall have occasion to point out hereafter. No record, not a scrap of paper, was filed into court at that stage and no contemporaneous record was prepared by anyone containing the barest allegations constituting the foundation of the oral application that was actually made, the written application that was proposed to be filed and the interim order issued.A most curious procedure indeed for a court of record to follow ! And, a situation where a judge would have to turn witness if any dispute arose subsequently as to what the allegations were and shy the judge made the order ! Shri S. S. Ray, who appeared before us at some stages of the case, informed u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ple, all applications for adjournment are generally made orally. Often, during the course of the hearing of a case it becomes necessary to n make applications of a formal nature and such applications are permitted by the Presiding judge. But in all such cases the court is already seized of the principal matter or dispute and there is a record pertaining to it before the court. But we hardly see any justification for the entertainment of an oral application and the issuance of an interim order with no record whatever of what was submitted to the court or the reasons for the order made by the court. To permit-a procedure by which oral applications may be made and interim orders obtained without any petition in writing, without any affidavit having been sworn to as prima facie proof of allegations and without any record being kept before the court may lead to very serious abuse of the process of the court. In fact, we have come across instances in the past where the Calcutta High Court had exercised jurisdiction in matters in which no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction, a situation which would surely not have arisen if a written and not an oral application had b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Calcutta High Court. immediately on receipt of the information, the representative of M/s Samarias Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. and their Advocate went to Calcutta on 2.4. 1984 where they obtained confirmation that a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court had made an order such as claimed by Shri K.K. Bandhopadhyay in his telegram. M/s Samarias Trading Co. Pvt. briefed a senior Advocate, Shri Saktinath Mukherjee to appear before Shri Justice Pyne on 3.4.1984. The information was that the writ petition would be taken up for orders at 2.30 P.M. On 3.4.1984. While the representative of M/s. Samarias Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd and their advocate were waiting in the court, they came to learn that the matter A had been mentioned to Shri Justice Pyne in his chamber by Shri Bhola Nath Sen the Senior Advocate representing Mr. S. Samuel and that the order of status quo had been extended until further orders. The representative of M/s Samarias Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. and their advocate and the Deputy Commissioner of Andamans, all of whom were waiting in the Court were not told that the matter was going to be mentioned in the learned Judge's chamber. As soon as they came to know about the conti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re than any private party, the public has a right to present in court and watch the proceeding and its conduct except in the very rare cases where the very cause of advancement of justice requires that proceeding be held in camera. In Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar ors. v. State of Maharashtra Anr.( [1966l 3 s.C.R 744.) it was observed by this Court as follows:- It is well-settled that in general, all cases brought before the Courts, whether civil, criminal or others, must be heard in open Court. Public trail in open court is undoubtedly essential for the healthy, objective and fair administration of justice. Trial held subject to the public scrutiny and gaze naturally acts as a check against judicial caprice or vagaries, and serves as a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public in the fairness, objectivity, and impartiality of the administration of justice. Public confidence in the administration of justice is of such great significance that there can be no two opinions on the broad proposition that in discharging their functions as judicial Tribunals, courts must generally hear causes in open and must permit the public admission to the court-room. As Bentham has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the learned Advocates for the parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the auction for vending of liquor that has been held should be set aside. Accordingly, we set aside the auction and direct the Deputy Commissioner of Andaman and Nicobar Islands to hold a fresh auction on the basis of the new terms and conditions that have already been circulated, being annexure to the Writ Petition. The auction will be held on the 19th, April, 1984 at 11 A. M. at the Conference Hall, Deputy Commissioner's office, at Port Blair. The reserved price for the auction of the liquor shop is fixed at ₹ 30,00000 (thirty lacs). It must he made clear that the period for which the auction of the liquor shop will be held will be from 22nd April,1984 till 31st of March, 1985. The auction will be advertised once in the Statesman in Calcutta and once in the Indian Express in Madras at least five days before the auction. In the event the reserved price of rupees thirty lacs is not bid, in that case, the writ petitioner undertakes to this Court that he will take the license at the reserved price of rupees thirty lacs and in that event the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. 4. 1984. One George Joseph claiming to be working for gain with Respondent No. 1, Shri Samuel filed a counter- affidavit purporting to be on behalf of Respondent No. 1. At the first hearing of the special leave petition on 17.4. 1984, Shri S. S. Ray, Senior Advocate, appeared for the respondent No. 1. On that day, the learned counsel appearing for the M/s Samarias Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. produced before us an affidavit dated 16. 4. 1984 purporting to be that of S. Samuel in which he disclaimed that he ever instructed any one to file any writ petition in the Calcutta High Court on his behalf. This affidavit appeared to destroy the very foundation of the order of the Calcutta High Court. The genuineness of the affidavit was however, disputed by Shri George Joseph, who Was present in court and S. S. Ray, senior advocate appearing on behalf of S. Samuel. In that situation we directed the issue of notice to all parties and bound over George Joseph to appear before us at the next hearing. We directed that S. Samuel should be present before us at the next hearing. We also directed that the re-auction, as ordered by the Calcutta High Court, should be held on April 19, 1984, but that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication. He met a group of people, one of whom claimed to be S. Samuel. A consultation was held by Shri A.K. Ganguly and the gentleman holding himself out as Samuel with Shri S.D. Banerjee in his presence in the court premises at about 3.15 p.m. On the same day. Thereafter Shri S.D. Banerjee entered the court room of Mr. Justice Pyne and moved an unlisted motion before the hon'ble judge at 4.00 p.m. when the court was about to rise. Shri S.D. Banerjee sought the permission of the hon'ble judge to move the matter in the chamber of the hon'ble judge by way of an oral application. Leave was granted and the application was moved before the learned judge in his chamber at 4.10 p.m. Shri A.K. Ganguly and Shri K.K Bandyopadhyay appeared along with Shri S D. Banerjee. That evening the gentleman who held himself out as S. Samuel and two or three others met Shri K.K. Bandyopadhyay and the latter requested Shri M. Lahiri, advocate to draft a writ petition. The two of them prepared the writ petition and got it ready for filing on April 3,1984. S. Samuel also handed over a Vakalatnama to him. On 3rd, the said gentleman appeared before the oath Commissioner and the papers were duly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
