Dropati Devi (Th. Lrs) v. State Of Haryana And Others
!"
#$
"%&'&#( ) *
+
,#- !&
".&
!/,#01/ '
--"33 (!'
4",'0'
5! !"
#$ ,* ( (6 #!/",'
"'-#(6"(!'
) 7 2 5 5 5 5 7 2 5
8
5 5 5 2
9:
"
!#$ !
! %& '( %('& )* +', -
# #
* +'
.
'
/
0
!
%1 (% %(%1
!
!
23 4 5(16 '55& !
$#
!
% 2
& &% . %7 '' '56'
9 ''%(($+ !
# 9 1((($+
: " .
# &( (' '56% !
;
<
9 1((($+ #
# 9 '&=%$+
#
=
#
# 9 '&=%$+
# (5 (1 '56%
# # '%>
)'$6, #
## # #
'=
#
# ?
#
#
/
#
#
#
# '%$61
<
# # #
.
;
!
'566
.
(= (% '566 4 ;
!
9 &%((($+ ?
# %' (& '566 #
#
#
# %' '% '566
2.
.
<
#
!! ! '1 (& '566
#
4 ; !
# 2##
# %= (1 '55&
#
9 '&=%$+
#
. "
9 1((($+ #
# @#
A
.
# # ?
#
# '= '% '561
'= '% '566 .
# # .
#
#
4 ;
4 ;
!
9 &%((($+ #
4 ;
'(
%= (1 '55& #
4 ;
'1 (& '566
#
B# '566
2.
"
''
! %= (1 '55&
23 4 5(16 '55&
#
!
!
.
%= (1 '55&
! #
!
'% 0
#
#
! .
9 '&=%$+
9 1((($+
'& 0
#
#
# !
B# '566 !
1C
#
#
#
.
!
';
!
!
#
+
$ '566
+
4 ;
:
!
"
D
# /
#$$
%"&' (
(
%
#
#
'= 0
#
# # !
+ #
! *
.
" .! B )B , '571 ) E'571 D, '1 3
! ! '7 :
# ##
'6
'56'
9 ''%(($+ $ 9 '&=%$+
'5 / #
.
?
9 '&=%$+
.
?
# . -
!
#
%(
!
9 1((($+
%7 '' '56' # "
!
/ !$
&' (' '56%
#
9 1((($+
#
9 ''%(($+ ?
! 9 '&=%$+
!
. /
<
@
#
! A
< #
$!
# 2##
#
%'
0
#
%= (1 '55& #
9 1((($+
%% !
/ !
# 9 '$+ #
# #
# 9 '$+ %&
#
?
!
. *
9 ''%(($
+
9
#
9 1((($+
* # =(C
!
.
?
#
!
9 1((($+
!
#
?
9 '&=%$+
%;
!
.
%= / # #
" "
/
!#
! %1 /
#
.
9 1((($+
$
#
# .
%7 F
# . !
?
/ #
#.
! ## .
%6 "
*
$
!
F
! # # "
?
-
# "
.
#
! ?
%5 /
"
!#
D
# /
) '* + ,)- .
D
# /
+ " 31. In State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and Others,11 referring to the aforesaid cases and several other decisions of this Court, the law was crystallized as under: "42. An analysis of the aforesaid judgments thus reveals: 42.1 Natural justice is a flexible tool in the hands of the judiciary to reach out in fit cases to remedy injustice. The breach of the audi alteram partem rule cannot by itself, without more, lead to the conclusion that prejudice is thereby caused.
42.2 Where procedural and/or substantive provisions of law embody the principles of natural justice, their infraction per se does not lead to invalidity of the orders passed. Here again, prejudice must be caused to the litigant, except in the case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest, but also in public interest.
42.3 No prejudice is caused to the person complaining of the breach of natural justice where such person does not dispute the case against him or it. This can happen by reason of estoppel, acquiescence, waiver and by way of non1challenge or non1denial or admission of facts, in cases in which the Court finds on facts that no real prejudice can therefore be said to have been caused to the person complaining of the breach of natural justice.
42.4 In cases where facts can be stated to be admitted or indisputable, and only one conclusion is possible, the Court does not pass futile orders of setting aside or remand when there is, in fact, no prejudice caused. This conclusion must be drawn by the Court on an appraisal of the facts of a case, and not by the authority who denies natural justice to a person. 42.5 The "prejudice" exception must be more than a mere apprehension or even a reasonable suspicion of a litigant. It should exist as a matter of fact, or be based upon a definite inference of likelihood of prejudice flowing from the non1 observance of natural justice."
&( -
# "
!#
/ -0$ .
&' (/ -0$ .
*
"
!
&'
#
$ '566
&1 !
#
4 ;
/
4 ;
9 &%((($+ ?
#
&1 !
# # .
#
&% !
;;
&& / #
%= (1 '55&
!
G
#
!
%= (1 '55&
&;
!
!
!
&= -
!
#
#
&1 G
&7 4 !
&6 !
# &5 #
5 5 5
*
+
8 harsha
3 .
!$ H 3
4