Ajay Ishwar Ghute vs. Meher K. Patel (Supreme Court, 30 April 2024)
Background
This case addressed the legality of a Bombay High Court order permitting the construction of a compound wall under police protection, based on “Minutes of Order” submitted by advocates for the parties. The dispute stemmed from property matters involving lands owned by Parsi Dairy Farm and related arbitration proceedings. The appellants challenged the High Court’s order, arguing that it was passed without proper consideration of objections raised by government officials and without impleading third parties whose rights would be affected by the construction.
Legal Issues
Whether the High Court was justified in passing a drastic order under Article 226 of the Constitution, based on “Minutes of Order,” without ensuring all necessary and affected parties were before the court.
The propriety and legality of the practice of passing orders on the basis of “Minutes of Order” in the Bombay High Court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court, led by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, found the High Court’s approach deeply flawed. The Division Bench had permitted the construction of a compound wall under police protection solely on the basis of “Minutes of Order” signed by advocates, without conducting even a basic inquiry into whether third parties—such as neighboring landowners, including tribals—would be affected by the construction.
The Court noted that affidavits from senior government officers had specifically warned that the construction could landlock properties of third parties. Despite this, the High Court neither impleaded these parties nor examined the factual issues raised in the affidavits. The Supreme Court clarified that an order based on “Minutes of Order” is not a consent order and must not bypass the rights of those who are not party to the proceedings.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s order was illegal and set it aside. The matter was remanded to the High Court with clear directions:
The High Court must determine whether all necessary and affected parties have been impleaded. If not, the petitioners must be directed to implead them within a reasonable time.
If the petitioners fail to implead necessary parties, the High Court may dismiss the writ petition and restore the status quo ante, including demolition of the compound wall if required.
If all parties are impleaded, the High Court must adjudicate the matter afresh, with the construction subject to the final outcome.
Judgment and Outcome
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, remanded the writ petition to the High Court, and made the construction of the compound wall subject to the High Court’s final decision. The judgment underscores the duty of courts to protect the rights of all affected parties and not to pass orders, even on the basis of “Minutes of Order,” without proper inquiry and due process.
Significance
This ruling clarifies that courts must not bypass procedural fairness, especially in property disputes affecting third parties, and highlights the limited scope for using “Minutes of Order” as a basis for judicial orders.
Citation: Ajay Ishwar Ghute & Ors. v. Meher K. Patel & Ors., [2024] INSC 353, Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 4786 of 2024, Judgment dated 30 April 2024
RELATED Blog
0 comments