K P JIMLA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed these writ petitions praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records connected with the impugned order in ARC Nos.73/2000, 77/2000, 78/2000, 79/2000, and 75/2000 respectively dated 30.3.2001 by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil and the appeal made thereon in Appeal G.O.(D) Nos.204 dated 15.7.2002,198 dated 15.7.2002,203 dated 15.7.2002,159 dated 1.7.2002 and,232 dated 24.7.2002 respectively by the Secretary, Commercial Taxes(G) Department and to quash the same and to direct the second respondent herein to conduct a proper trial by affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner in each case, due to exigency of funds, the husband of each one of them borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from the third respondent company under CJK small Savings Scheme. The said scheme was operated by the third respondent between October 1998 and January 2002. From 30th instalment to 40th instalment, the amount has not been paid and hence the third respondent filed O.P.Nos.73/2000, 77/2000, 78/2000,79/2000 and 75/2000 respectively before the second respondent and the same was posted on 19.3.2001 for the first hearing. When the matters came up for hearing on 19.3.2001, the second respondent had not followed the procedure enshrined under Section 67 of the Chit Funds Act and on the first hearing itself, an exparte award was passed and at this stage, it is to be noted that the petitioner in each case filed vakalath through their counsel. They had also projected a petition seeking permission of the second respondent to peruse the documents and also to get copies of the same,which was sent through post and as a matter of fact, as per Section 7(2) of the Chit Funds Act, an appropriate direction was sought for, to permit the petitioner in each case to represent them through their legal practitioners and more over, as per Section 68(4) of the Chit Funds Act, the second respondent was empowered to pass necessary orders to prevent the ends of justice being defeated. But in the present case on hand, the second respondent had not passed any orders in regard to the grant or otherwise of permission required under Section 67(2) of the said Act and further he also hurriedly passed the order in the matter in issue and there was a violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, prays for allowing these writ petitions.

(3.) IT is to be noted that even though, the petitioner in each case, had sent a petition through post praying permission of the second respondent to permit their counsel to appear and also to peruse the records, it appears that on that date, when the matter came up for hearing on the date, when the award was passed, there was no appearance on the side of the petitioner either in person or through their authorised representative notwithstanding the above, the said petitions were not assigned the necessary numbers thereto and necessary orders were not been passed on merits, of course, after hearing the parties or their advocates. IT is true that principles of natural justice are not an embodiment of straight jacket cast iron formula, but equally, it is the prime responsibility of the petitioners to take part in the proceedings by their physical presence or through their authorised representative or the counsel as the case may be. But in the present case on hand, the party or the counsel had not appeared , when an exparte award was passed on 19.3.2001.