ORDER
Dipak Misra, J.
1. The petitioner, an Advocate by profession, is a resident of Village Kuraha, Block Navgaon, District Chhatarpur. In the District Chhatarpur, 53 circles were constituted for establishment of Gram Nyayalaya and the Village Kuraha was treated as one of the circles for the purpose of constitution of the Gram Nyayalaya. For the purpose of constitution of the Gram Nyayalaya Madhya Pradesh Gram Nyayalaya Adhiniyam, 1996 Act No. 26 of 1997 (for brevity 'the Act') was enacted and the same came into force on 19-5-1997. The Janpad Panchayat unanimously recommended one of the seven persons including that of the petitioner. The name of the petitioner was included as a 'law knowing person'. On the basis of the recommendation issued by the Janpad Panchayat, the Principal Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, issued a list of appointed members of Gram Nyayalaya after formalities were to be carried out by the Collector of the District. As set forth the name of the petitioner was published in daily newspaper 'Chhatarpur Bhaskar' on 23-5-2002. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Navgaon by letter dated 27-5-2002 communicated to the petitioner that his presence was necessary for the election of Pradhan. The petitioner attended the same. He had also undergone training as per request letter issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Navgaon.
2. As pleaded, the petitioner was appointed as a Member of the Gram Nyayalaya, as is evincible from the document brought on record. But all of a sudden, on 11-12-2002 his nomination dated 1-5-2002, Annexure P-1 was cancelled without issuing him any notice to show cause. It is contended that the term of a member of a Gram Nyayalaya as per the provisions of the Act is five years, but the same has been curtailed by an abrupt stroke, without affording an opportunity of being heard despite the factum that the name of the petitioner was duly recommended and accepted by the State Government. It is urged in the petition that the petitioner was perfectly qualified to hold the post of the Member and in the absence of any disqualification his membership could not have been cancelled and that too is in flagrant violation of the doctrine of audi alteram partem. In this background a prayer has been made for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of cancellation contained in Annexure P-5.
3. At the very outset, it is though condign to state that though no counter affidavit was filed by the State of M.P. but Mr. Harish Agnihotri, learned Govt. Advocate for the State agreed to argue the matter without filing a return, as it was canvassed by him that a pure question of law arises on the factual assertion made by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, I have heard the matter finally.
4. Mr. Adil Usmani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the appointment having been fructified and concretised, could not have been nullified without following the principles of natural justice. It is urged by him that it is clearly demonstrable that prior to passing of the order of cancellation the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. It is his proponement that when a benefit has been conferred and it is obvious and distinct that the same has been taken away without hearing a person the whole action is vitiated. The learned Counsel further contended that his right could not be obliterated and decimated without following the requirement of principles of natural justice, as such action is not only flawed and defective, but destroys the basic fabric of adjudication.
5. Mr. Harish Agnihotri, learned Govt. Advocate for the State, countering the aforesaid submissions contended that that annihilation of the right as put forth by the petitioner in the case at hand, does not require attraction of the principles of natural justice, as the assertions made in the petition would go a long way to show that the petitioner was not entitled to be nominated as a Member. Submission of Mr. Agnihotri is that when the facts are absolutely clear and the petitioner was having special knowledge of the same, there could not have been any change by affording an opportunity of hearing, and the whole exercise would have been an exercise in futility and, therefore, the action taken by the State Government does not warrant interference. To bolster his said submission the learned Counsel has referred to the cause title and the affidavit to show that the petitioner being 44 years of age could not have been nominated in the category of 'law knowing person' as per the enactment and moreso, when such a qualified person is available in the area and it is perceptible from the appointment of the respondent No. 4, who is 45 years of age as per own saying of the petitioner.
6. To appreciate the rivalised submissions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, it is appropriate to scan the anatomy of the Act. Section 2(f) defines 'Gram Nyayalaya'. Section 5 deals with constitution of Nyayalaya. It reads as under:
5. Constitution of Gram Nyayalaya.- (1) Every Gram Nyayalaya shall consist of seven members to be nominated by the Janpad Panchayat unanimously out of whom one shall be a law knowing person and in case the Janpad Panchayat fails to nominate any member unanimously within sixty days from the date of establishment of Gram Nyayalaya under Section 4, or from the date of occurrence of any vacancy as the case may be, the State Government shall nominate such member.
(2) One seat each shall be reserved for person belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes:
Provided that if no candidate belonging to any of these categories is available then the seat reserved for that category shall stand de-reserved.
(3) One seat shall be reserved for Women and shall be allotted by rotation to different categories.
7. Section 6 stipulates the qualification for membership of Gram Nyayalaya. The said provision reads as under:
6. Qualification for membership of Gram Nyayalaya.-
No person shall be eligible for nomination as a member of a Gram Nyayalaya unless he-
(a) has completed the age of 45 years on the date of nomination.
(b) is ordinary resident of the circle for which such Gram Nyayalaya is established.
(c) has passed eighth standard in case of members belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and matriculation case of other:
Provided that in any area, which shall be mentioned in the rules, if a member belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, who has passed eight standard examination is not available, the Janpad Panchayat or the State Government, as the case may be, may nominate a suitable person after relaxing the prescribed age limit and educational qualifications:Provided further that in case a law knowing person is not available the minimum age may be reduced to 25 years.
8. Section 9 deals with the term of the office of the Member. I may reproduce the said provision with profit:
Term of office of the member.-
A member shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he is nominated:
Provided that a member shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term, continue to hold office for a period not exceeding six months or until a new member is nominated in his place whichever is earlier.
9. As is evincible from the aforesaid provisions the names of seven members are to be recommended by the Janpad Panchayat unanimously. One such member has to be a person who has knowledge in law. There can be no doubt a practicing Advocate is a 'law knowing person' as per the dictionary clause. Section 6 provides eligibility criteria. One such criteria is that a person should be 45 years of age on the date of nomination. The provisos carve out the exceptions.
10. The second proviso lays a postulate that in case a law knowing person is not available the minimum age should be reduced to 25 years. As has been reflected in the cause title and set forth in the affidavit the petitioner was 44 years. The description by the petitioner himself cannot be regarded as unacceptable especially in the present context. The second proviso could have been taken recourse to had there been no 'law knowing person' available. The petitioner himself has asseverated that the fourth respondent, as Advocate, has been appointed as a Member of the Gram Nyayalaya. That goes a long way to show that such a person is available. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is not a resident of the circle for which the Gram Nyayalaya has been established. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent does not meet the qualification as provided under Section 6 of the Act or has the disqualification as stipulated under Section 7. In view of the aforesaid there cannot be a scintilla of doubt that the petitioner's nomination was contrary to Section 6 inasmuch as a law knowing person as has been defined under Section 2(i) of the Act was available. There was no need to take recourse to the Second Proviso of Section 6. When the facts are clear as crystal and luminescent as day the non-compliance of the principles of natural justice would not vitiate the cancellation as no prejudice can be said to have caused inasmuch as the facts are absolutely vivid with regard to the age of the petitioner. Be it noted the principles of natural justice are means to achieve an end and not an end in themselves. One may not propagate that it would tantamount to adopting the theory of an exercise in futility, but, it can be stated without any hesitation that the principles of natural justice cannot be allowed to have free play all the time and be confined and restricted to a straight-jacket formula. In certain circumstances the Court can substitute the pre-decisional hearing by applying the doctrine of post- decisional hearing. The order of cancellation fundamentally does not destroy the marrows of the legal rights. The matter would have been different had the petitioner asserted that he was nominated in the absence of a law knowing person. The facts that emerge from the petition exposit a contrary scenario. Thus, I am not disposed to accept the contention of Mr. Usmani that as the petitioner was not asked to show cause or offer explanation the act of cancellation is indefensible. I may hasten to clarify I have not expressed any opinion that whenever there would be cancellation of a nomination of a member principles of natural justice would not be attracted.
11. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed without any order as to costs.