Justice Not Saleable, Failure To Extend Benefits Of Judgment In Rem To Similarly Situated Persons Violates Constitutional Rights: Rajasthan HC
"Justice is not a saleable commodity. All aggrieved persons should not be compelled by the State Authorities to approach the Court of law and get similar orders which have been passed in favour of the similarly situated persons who approached the Court earlier," the Rajasthan High Court observed recently.The remarks were made while disposing off a bunch of writ petitions...
"Justice is not a saleable commodity. All aggrieved persons should not be compelled by the State Authorities to approach the Court of law and get similar orders which have been passed in favour of the similarly situated persons who approached the Court earlier," the Rajasthan High Court observed recently.
The remarks were made while disposing off a bunch of writ petitions challenging blacklisting of their vehicles by the Transport Department on request of the Mining Department.
A bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand noted that in a similar case Zabir Khan v State of Rajasthan, various trucks/transport/loading vehicles were categorized as “blacklisted” for alleged overloading solely on the strength of e-rawanna issued by Mining Department. The High Court had issued several directions including declassifying the vehicles from "blacklisted" category and getting nomenclature from “blacklisting” changed to any other appropriate nomenclature.
While the petitioners in this case had sought the benefit of Zabir Khan (supra), the respondent-authorities contended that the judgment passed in Zabir Khan was not in rem but in personam. Hence, it could only be confined to the parties to that case and not to everyone placed in similar situation..
Disagreeing, the Court noted that when a judgment was pronounced that affected rights of public at large, it should be treated as a judgment in rem. Irrespective of the aggrieved approaching the court, authorities were obligated to extend its benefits to all similarly situated persons.
In the instant case, Court said the respondents-authorities were not complying with the directions issued in Zabir Khan (supra) and were unnecessarily compelling the aggrieved persons to approach the Court again and again for getting the similar orders.
"Such action of the respondents has opened flood gates for the aggrieved persons...Justice is not a saleable commodity. The State Authorities cannot be allowed to compel the aggrieved persons to approach the Court of Law and get the same order. Once a issue has been decided by the Court of Law and the same has not been challenged by the State Authorities before any Appellate Court and thus, it attained finality, then the State Authorities are bound by the same. The State should not unnecessarily compel the aggrieved persons to knock the doors of the Court again and again for getting a similar order. The “doctrine of finality of judgment” is applicable in such matters," the Court observed.
It thus directed the all District Transport Offices to redress the grievance of the aggrieved persons in a time bound manner in the light of directions issued in the case of Zabir Khan (supra).
Title: Naresh Singhal v State of Rajasthan, Transport Department of Rajasthan Secretariat Jaipur & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 116