High Court of Punjab and HaryanaRSA/1939/2012allowed

Salti Agnihotri v. M/S Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. And ANR

2024-12-09Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil10 pages

"!#$ %

&%% ' ( )% &% & & * +%& & && % ****

,#!!-./"01 !

$$ %% & &# &'

( # #)# *+ * *$ &' ,#-# &'

)# &' $.

$/ *$$0 &' % ,# -#

# #

//0

# #

) # # 2 3$$$$$4( !

# # & % &

(

) % &' ' '

- 2 -

4 2&5' 6& 6 *

/0/ #

$ $ // 7(( 88 ' //* "

9 7((888 0 $.

//1

//1 "

&# # ##

& # # 8 '

# & # #

2 :

&# ;

8 ** $1 //0

& # ' 5'

< "

=# 5

' +0 *1 $1 //0 "

' $* $/ //0

$/ //0 5

&$+ $/ //0'#

# .!

% :& %&#- %:( .> ( /// #

- 3 - 4 ' # * % 8 +!

//0 & %&'' ' # 4 ' #<' #

# & &

&' %

;>2 > % %

< 2 /1/ 04(2 **$$>4( & &'

&' # ; &&' 4 ' # ' ## # =#&' # ; #

( '

; # <'

& <' #

& 8 ' ## &

# 2 2# % '##

' #

- 4 - 1!

; &

# &

# > $> *$$* (

%- ?*&#=# # #

- .

&'< # - +

# #

<& %#) & # % - # &' & # % .

8 #&' %

) &

$* $/ //0 @5

(.! #&'7 :( =, :(. & @5

:( 4.

" &

# & 2 )

& < ) 5 # "

B9& % C # <

)

' < ' 5

- 5 - # =# &) "

D ) '5 # $!

))

# ' # ) "

'&'' ' 8 '

)

# # # ' 8 # ) ' !

&)#

!*!

& # # '

# & #

' # <() <& # & & '& '

C ''&' & ) !

' ' '<&' )

) ' < 8 ) # ) ' &

& < ;

' < <() < @< &#<() # ) & <( ) <

< )<''

- 6 -

<() <'

8 )# A !

"" #$%& '( )*+ ,- # <' &

' <' =

8 <' & # <' 8<' ;

' &

8 .

/!01!)+,

# <' &

# ' <

) .!

%# #- ?*#

)# 5 % 2 '

# &'

8 )# B9& 5%A 2 3242"!

$ $0/! !2 * 5 $" $0 "

6- ( " # $

% %& $ '

'( $ # $ $ )

- 7 - +!

# # &' & % & # .

/0/@5 ( ' ' &

&' '

#- ?*#

&( # %

)

# '&#

' 1!

% .

/0/ @5 ( ( "

(

# ) >!

&# & '& #

' # & 8 '

# & %& # <'

##&' 7

:( =, :(. @5

:( 4.

(

# 5

' &

- 8 - 0!

# # )# % % = # @5( :( 4. ( "+ #

$ (

) ; ' &( ' &

D ' & &

# 2 ' & # # '

;

' '5 <'

# ' & ' ' &

<' & & &) ;

8 # &

' # # #

& #) # 8 &

# &

- 9 - *$!

The Apex Court in CCT v. Shukla & Bros., (2010) 4 SCC 785, has observed that:

10. The increasing institution of cases in all courts in India and its resultant burden upon the courts has invited attention of all concerned in the justice administration system. Despite heavy quantum of cases in courts, in our view, it would neither be permissible nor possible to state as a principle of law, that while exercising power of judicial review on administrative action and more particularly judgment of courts in appeal before the higher court, providing of reasons can never be dispensed with. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard. Secondly, the authority concerned should provide a fair and transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order. This has been uniformly applied by courts in India and abroad. * !

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another case titled as D.K. Yadav vs J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1993) 3 SCC 259, enumerated the cardinal principle of reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Court stated that the major advantage of this principle is the prevention of an arbitrary action on behalf of the authority while adjudicating a case. The Court discussed the principles of reasonableness, non-arbitrariness and natural justice under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 observing that: "8. The cardinal point that has to be borne in mind, in every case, is whether the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case and the authority should act fairly, justly, reasonably and impartially. It is not so much to act

- 10 - judicially but is to act fairly, namely, the procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. In other words application of the principles of natural justice that no man should be condemned unheard intends to prevent the authority from acting arbitrarily affecting the rights of the concerned person. In State of Orissa v. (Miss) Binapani Dei [(1967) 2 SCR 625 : AIR 1967 SC 1269 : (1967) 2 LLJ 266] the Court held that even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. The person concerned must be informed of the case, the evidence in support thereof supplied and must be given a fair opportunity to meet the case before an adverse decision is taken. Since no such opportunity was given it was held that superannuation was in violation of principles of natural justice. **!

8 # & #

,# &'& %& &'

& "

*1 $0 //0 *1 $0 //0 B < &

*.!

( & # '

$/ * *$*+ &

,#!!-./"0

./!

1. Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No

2. Whether reportable?

Yes/No