STATE OF KERALA Vs. M C JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in O.P. No. 748 of 1970, reported in 1973 KLT 366 . The writ petition sought to quash Ext. P19 order of the State Government and certain other proceedings taken by it. These proceedings were taken against the writ petitioner (Respondent in the appeal) holding him liable for shortage of a stock of rice which be, as a godown keeper in the foodgrains depot, at Ponnani, under the Civil Supplies Department, had brought about on account of his neglect, carelessness or misconduct. The contract between the writ petitioner and the Government evidenced by Ext. P1 contained clause (4) as follows:

(2.) We regret we are unable to sustain the reasoning and the conclusion of the learned Judge. The learned Judge was of the view that no man can be a Judge in his own cause, and that this elementary rule of natural justice was contravened by clause (4) in Ext. P1, which clothed the Government, one of the contracting parties, to decide for itself the disputes between it and the 1st Respondent. The learned Judge was of the view that a provision dispensing with the rule of natural justice cannot be readily inferred in the case of even legislative enactments, and that stronger reasons for similar dispensation in case of contracts with similar provision as in Ext P1 was necessary. The learned Judge has noticed the passage from the 10th Edition of Broom's Legal Maxims at page 72. That passage itself has sufficiently emphasised that "the legislature can, and no doubt in a proper case would, depart from the general rule, and an intention to do so being clearly expressed, the Courts give effect to the enactment." Therefore, if the principle of applicability of rules of natural justice were to be extended to the region of contract, we have little doubt that the clearly expressed intention in clause (4) in Ext. P1 must have its full sway and operation, and cannot be allowed to be overridden by the rules of natural justice.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader was asked to investigate and submit his argument on the question; and after a good amount of research, be brought to our notice the decision in Secretary of State for India in Council v. Augustius John Arathoon (ILR 1882 (V) Mad. 178), which we consider quite apposite on the point. At page 184, Muthuswami Iyer J. who agreed with the Officiating Chief Justice (Innes J.), stated thus: