Whether decree in favour of dead person is nullity?

So far as the general principles regarding the order passed against a dead person being void is concerned, the same is founded on the principle of natural justice, wherein, no person can be condemned unheard, however, as to whether the order passed in favour of a dead person would be void has been dealt with by this Court in Prahlad Singh v. The President District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1103/2005 decided on 25/4/2005, wherein, it was laid down as under:

"10. Secondly, the order in favour of a dead person cannot be said to be nullity and, therefore also I do not find any merit in submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the State Government is nullity. It may be true that the order against a dead person may be nullity, but same principle is not applicable when the order is in favour of a dead person."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2756/2000

Decided On: 04.05.2017

Khairati Lal Vs.  State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Arun Bhansali, J.

Print Page

What is term “entitled to defend” and its connection with principles of natural justice?

At this juncture, it is necessary to state that in Udit
Narain (Supra) question arose whether a tribunal is a
necessary party. Recently a two-Judge Bench in Asstt. G.M
State Bank of India v. Radhey Shyam Pandey 
2015 (3) SCALE 39 referred
to Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque and
 Ors.AIR 1955 SC 233
and adverted to the concept of a tribunal being a necessary
party and in that context ruled that:-
“In Hari Vishnu Kamath (supra), the larger
Bench was dealing with a case that arose from
Election Tribunal which had ceased to exist and
expressed the view how it is a proper party. In
Udit Narain Singh (supra), the Court was really
dwelling upon the controversy with regard to the
impleadment of parties in whose favour orders
had been passed and in that context observed
that tribunal is a necessary party. In Savitri
Devi (supra), the Court took exception to courts
and tribunals being made parties. It is apposite
to note here that propositions laid down in each
case has to be understood in proper perspective.
Civil courts, which decide matters, are courts in
the strictest sense of the term. Neither the court
nor the Presiding Officer defends the order before
the superior court it does not contest. If the High
Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction or
revisional jurisdiction, as the case may be, calls
for the records, the same can always be called for
by the High court without the Court or the

Presiding Officer being impleaded as a party.
Similarly, with the passage of time there have
been many a tribunal which only adjudicate and
they have nothing to do with the lis. We may cite
few examples; the tribunals constituted under
the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal,
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunals, the Sales
Tax Tribunal and such others. Every
adjudicating authority may be nomenclatured as
a tribunal but the said authority(ies) are different
that pure and simple adjudicating authorities
and that is why they are called the authorities.
An Income Tax Commissioner, whatever rank he
may be holding, when he adjudicates, he has to
be made a party, for he can defend his order. He
is entitled to contest. There are many authorities
under many a statute. Therefore, the proposition
that can safely be culled out is that the
authorities or the tribunals, who in law are
entitled to defend the orders passed by them, are
necessary parties and if they are not arrayed as
parties, the writ petition can be treated to be not
maintainable or the court may grant liberty to
implead them as parties in exercise of its
discretion. There are tribunals which are not at
all required to defend their own order, and in that
case such tribunals need not be arrayed as
parties.”
The principle that has been culled out in the said case
is that a tribunal or authority would only become a
necessary party which is entitled in law to defend the order.
17. The term “entitled to defend” confers an inherent right
to a person if he or she is affected or is likely to be affected
by an order to be passed by any legal forum, for there would

be violation of natural justice. The principle of audi alteram
partem has its own sanctity but the said principle of natural
justice is not always put in strait jacket formula. That
apart, a person or an authority must have a legal right or
right in law to defend or assail.
18. We may first clarify that as a proposition of law it is
not in dispute that natural justice is not an unruly horse.
Its applicability has to be adjudged regard being had to the
effect and impact of the order and the person who claims to
be affected; and that is where the concept of necessary party
become significant.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6774 of 2015
(@ SLP(C) NO. 16650 OF 2012)
Poonam
 V
State of U.P. & Ors
Citation;(2016) 2 SCC779
Dipak Misra, J.
Dated;October 29, 2015

Print Page

When evidence collected unilaterally by Vigilance Cell/Authority/Officer, can be used against claimant?

The Scrutiny Committee must give all opportunities to the
affected person. The evidence collected unilaterally by the Vigilance
Cell/Authority/Officer, if used against the claimant, all opportunities
be given to deal with the same. How the unilaterally collected
material be used against the party/claimant, when deciding legal and
Constitutional rights. The principle of natural justice needs to be
followed, in case of no specific rules. The opportunity needs to be
given to the person/claimant to rebut the presumption of decision of
Scrutiny Committee, if any, especially when against the Scrutiny
Committee order, the Writ Petitions are filed, and the Writ Court
under Articles 226 and 227, are required to go into the details of the
disputed question of fact and documents, though writ jurisdiction and
its scope is limited. The decision is required to be considered in Writ
Petition like Appellate Authority. The Writ Court needs to examine the
case on merits also, including the Vigilance Cell report, which just
cannot be overlooked.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7343 OF 2013
Madhuri Nitin Jadhav,
Vs.
 State of Maharashtra, through its


CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
A.A. SAYED, JJ.

PRONOUNCED ON : 26 FEBRUARY 2014.
Citation;2015(2)ALLMR200

Print Page