This case interpretation/case summary is written by Mr. Sonu Choudhary, a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to niyamskanoon09@gmail.com
Introduction
This case talks about the doctrine of Constructive Res Judicata and its applicability to a Writ petition filed under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution. Here the honorable Judges also try to differentiate between the general principle of Res Judicata and constructive Res Judicata which has been developed over the years and incorporated in CPC,1908 as Section 11.
Facts
- The respondent, Nawab Hussain, was a Sub-Inspector in UP Police. He was charged for corruption under Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC. The officer in rank of DIG dismissed him.
- He filed a writ petition in Allahabad High Court for quashing the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to meet the allegations against him and the action taken was mala fide. The HC dismissed the plea.
- The respondent then filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge challenging the dismissal order on the ground that since he has been appointed by the IG of Police, he can not be dismissed by officer subordinate i.e. DIG of Police by virtue of provisions of Article 311(1) of the Constitution. This suit was dismissed and the Court held that the DIG of Police would be deemed to be the appointing authority. Also he held that the suit was not barred by the doctrine of Res Judicata.
- District Judge upheld the judgement of Trial Court.
- The matter appealed by the plaintiff in the HC which has been allowed by the impugned judgement of HC. It also held that the suit was not barred by principle of constructive Res Judicata.
- The appellant State Government appealed before the Supreme Court which has been decided by Shinghal J.
Issue
- Whether the principle of constructive Res Judicata applies on writ petitions.
Ratio Decidendi-
- Marginson case-
- The principle of estoppel per res judicata is a rule of evidence.
- It is based on two theories - finality and judicial conclusiveness of judicial decisions for the final termination of disputes-
- in the general interest of community as a matter of public policy
- in the individual interest so that he can be protected from multiplication of litigation.
- Although S.11 deals with suits and former suits and has no direct application to a Writ petition, it has been acted upon in cases for a writ such as Ex parte Thomson, where Denman C.J. applied this principle for not issuing mandamus repeatedly.
- Janakiram Iyer case, based on which the HC gave the decree was quite a different case because in that case the subsequent suit was a representative suit since the plaintiffs of the earlier suit and the plaintiffs of the subsequent suit were different. This case has no bearing on present case.
- Amalgamated coal fields Ltd case- CRJ was a special and artificial form of Res Judicata under S. 11 CPC and should not be applied generally to writ petitions. Because the case of tax liability was for different years
- Devilal Modi case- same judge of Amalgamated Coal fields Ltd. case held principle of CRJ is applicable to writ petitions also.
- Gulabchand Case- S.11 is not exhaustive and doesn't prevent the application of general principle of Res Judicata to regular suits as it is based on public policy and applied from ancient times. Nature of former proceeding is immaterial for its application.
Decision
- Allowed appeal
- Set aside the order of HC.
- The suit was barred by constructive Res Judicata.
- Respondent should not be allowed to challenge his dismissal by the subsequent suit.
- Dismissed the subsequent suit filed by the respondent.
Also Read:-
Get more updates:-
LinkedIn:- NiyamsKanoon
Instagram:- Niyams_kanoon
