Petition dismissed for not exhausting appeal remedy; no natural justice breach found under procedural rules

The HC held that the petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternate remedy by way of appeal. No patent breach of natural justice was found, as the petitioners had been issued a show-cause notice and given an opportunity to be heard. The refusal of adjournment did not amount to a violation, especially as no prejudice was demonstrated. The petitioners' failure to raise these issues during the original proceedings precluded deviation from the rule of exhausting alternate remedies. The petitions were disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioners to file appeals within six weeks. The appellate authority was directed to consider the appeals on merits without raising limitation objections, given the petitioners' bona fide prosecution before the HC.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the challenge to the Order in Original by the Adjudicating Officer can be entertained despite availability of an alternate and efficacious remedy of Appeal.Whether the adjudication by the same officer who conducted the audit violates the principles of natural justice, specifically the maxim "Nemo judex in causa sua".Whether denial of opportunity to lead expert evidence and refusal of adjournments amounts to breach of natural justice and fair play.Whether the principle of exhaustion of alternate remedies is applicable in cases of alleged patent breach of natural justice.Whether failure to raise objections of bias during adjudication proceedings constitutes waiver of such objections.Whether the appellate authority should consider appeals filed beyond limitation period where the petitioners had bona fide approached the Court within limitation.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The Court held that since the Petitioners have an alternate and efficacious remedy of instituting an Appeal against the Order in Original, the writ petitions cannot be entertained. The statement that no alternate remedy exists is "incorrect to say the least".The contention that the adjudicating officer conducting both audit and adjudication proceedings violates natural justice was not accepted as a ground to depart from the rule of exhausting alternate remedies, especially since the issue of bias was not raised during the proceedings.The denial of opportunity to lead expert evidence and refusal of adjournments do not amount to a "patent breach" of natural justice sufficient to bypass the alternate remedy of Appeal, particularly as no application for expert evidence was formally made and no prejudice was demonstrated.The Court reaffirmed that "Any patent breach of natural justice principles constitutes a well-known exception to the rule or practice of exhausting alternative remedies," but found no such patent breach here to justify departure from this practice.Failure to raise objections of bias during adjudication proceedings and participation without demur amounts to waiver of such objections, negating claims of serious violation of natural justice.The Court granted liberty to institute Appeals within six weeks and directed the Appellate Authority to consider such Appeals on merits "without adverting to the issue of limitation" because the Petitioners had bona fide prosecuted the writ petitions within limitation period.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the well-established principle of exhaustion of alternate remedies, relying on precedents including Oberoi Constructions Ltd, State of Maharashtra v. Greatship (India) Ltd, and Bank of Baroda v. Farooq Ali Khan, which emphasize that alternate remedies must be exhausted unless there is a patent breach of natural justice.The Court emphasized the principle of waiver in the context of personal bias allegations, noting that objections must be raised at the earliest opportunity during proceedings to avoid waiver.The Court recognized that factual issues such as bias and denial of opportunity are better adjudicated by the Appellate Authority, which is equipped to assess evidence and merits.The Court clarified that its observations are limited to the issue of exhaustion of alternate remedies and do not prejudice merits of the appeal or defenses to be raised therein.The Court exercised judicial discretion to allow appeals beyond limitation to ensure substantive justice, given the bona fide prosecution of writ petitions within limitation.

---