AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ekbote, C.J.—While dismissing the writ petition at the admission stage, the learned Judge gave the following direction:
"Suffice it to direct that the ''163'' bags of cholam seized by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 from the lorries of the petitioner may be sold by the Government in accordance with the rules and the price so realised may be given to the petitioner on furnishing security for that value. With this direction, the writ petition is dismissed."
Admittedly this direction was given without hearing the other side. It is time and again pointed out by this court that when the writ petition is dismissed, no direction can be given. It creates a very embarrassing position. since the writ petition is dismissed, the authority which is directed to act in a particular way can with impunity flout the direction, and this Court will not be able to take any contempt proceedings. Secondly, in giving direction against any authority, the elementary requirement is to hear the other side before any such direction is given. If that principle of natural justice is violated, it is now fairly settled that the direction becomes void. In view of that legal position the authority to whom the direction is given can disregard it with impunity and without being held responsible for such violation. It is therefore always advisable to avoid giving directions, when the writ petitions are dismissed at the admission stage and without hearing the other side, which is likely to be affected by such direction.
On merits of the case, we agree with the learned Judge that there are disputed questions of fact which have to be decided first by the primary authority. The petitioner. the moment of jawar was seized and the cholam was requisitioned, came to this Court without approaching the appropriate authorities. It is not the function of this Court to take upon itself to decide the questions which arises in several cases without being first decided by primary authorities under the concerned statutes. The learned judge, in our view, was right in dismissing the writ petition at the admission stage. After hearing the learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader, we are satisfied that the direction which was given ought not to have been given. We would therefore set aside that part of the order under appeal, but allow the dismissal of the writ petition to be sustained.
Subject to the abovesaid modification, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.