LL.M.

Program on
Criminal Law and Justice
First Year (2020-2022)

Case Analysis of
Parshuram Banjade on behalf of Yagya Murte Banjade
V
Durga Das Shrestha, Bagmati Special Court, Singhadurbar, Kathmandu
and others

For the Fulfillment of Requirement of

Comparative Legal System
Term Paper

Submitted to:
Purbanchal University
Through
Kathmandu School of Law
Dadhikot - 9, Bhaktapur

Submitted by: Shruti Kharel

Table of contents
 CHAPTER I

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

Natural Justice encapsulates two ideas i.e. that the individual be given adequate hearing (audi
alteram partem) and that the adjudicator be unbiased (Nemo Judex in causa sua). The doctrine of
Natural Justice consists of two rules1:
 Nemo debet esse Judex in Propria cause (Bias and Interest i.e. no one shall be a judge in
his own case)
 Audi alteram partem ( no one shall be given judgment against a party without affording
him a reasonable hearing).

Formal justice and the rule of law are enhanced in the sense that the principle of natural justice
help to guarantee objectivity and impartiality. They are also seen as protecting human dignity by
ensuring that the individual is told why he is being treated unfavorably and by enabling him to
take part in that decision.2

Natural justice is a concept of common law and it is that common law world counter part of the
American procedural due process. Prof. H.W R Wade defines Natural justice as “the name given
to certain fundamental rules which are so necessary to the proper exercise of power that they are
projected form the judicial to administrative sphere.”3

In case4, Natural Justice is a great humanity principle intended to invest law with fairness and to
secure justice and over the years it has grown into a wide pervasive rule affecting large area of
administrative action. The inquiry must always be does fairness in action demand that no
opportunity to be heard should given to the person affected …although there are no positive
words in the statute requiring that the party shall be heard yet the justice of the common law will
supply the omission of the legislation.

The court apply the natural justice to judicial decisions and reserve a duty to act fairly for
administrative or executive determinations.5 In Megarry case6 Natural Justice, being a flexible
term which imposes distinct requirements in different cases, is capable of applying to the whole
1
B.P Acharya , Administrative Law, pairavi Prakasan Books and Stationary Center(2002) P. 195
2
P.P Craig, Administrative Law, sweet and Maxwell universal law publishing co. Pvt. (1996) P.199-223
3
B.P Acharya , Administrative Law, pairavi Prakasan Books and Stationary Center(2002) P. 195
4
Menaka Gandi v Govt. of India, AIR 1978, sc,p. 598, as cited in Acharya , Administrative Law, pairavi Prakasan
Books and Stationary Center(2002) P. 195
5
Pearlberg v varty, (1972) 1. WLR 543,547, 550
6
P.P Craig, Administrative Law, sweet and Maxwell universal law publishing co. Pvt. (1996) P.199-223
range of situations encapusalted by term “judicial” or “quasi judicial” or “administrative” or
“executive”.

1.2. Objective:

To understand how the Supreme court of Nepal have used the principle of natural justice in the
case of Parshuram Banjade on behalf of Yagya Murte Banjade V Durga Das Shrestha, Bagmati
Special Court, Singhadurbar, Kathmandu and others, N.K.P 2027, D.N. 547.

1.3. Methodology

The paper uses the descriptive method of research methodology and relies on primary and
secondary sources of data.

1.4. Limitation

This paper is based on the case of Parshuram Banjade on behalf of Yagya Murte Banjade V
Durga Das Shrestha, Bagmati Special Court, Singhadurbar, Kathmandu and others, N.K.P
2027, D.N. 547.

CHAPTER II
2.1. General background of Principle of fair trial

The right to fair trial is a norm of international human rights law designed to protect individuals
from the unlawful and arbitrary curtailment or deprivation of other basic rights and freedom, the
most prominent of which are the right to life and liberty of the Human tights and the rule of law
would be meaning where tight to fair trial is not respected duly in course of criminal proceeding. 7

Right to fair trail is a basic human right associated with criminal justice. Fair trial is equated with
due process that the trial is fair if it satisfies substantive and procedural protection. 8 Fair trial has
been center concern of international community in respect of protection, promotion and
fulfillment of civil and political rights throughout world.9

The concept of fair trail cannot be de-linked from the basic principle of rule of law. 10 Fair trial
has been understood or disinterested dispensation of justice but competent state’s judicial organs.
Garner says that “a trial in by an impartial and disinterested tribunal in accordance with regular
procedures, esp. a criminal trial in which the defendant’s constitutional and legal rights are
respected”

The terms of fair trial comprise all processes of criminal justice commencing from the
investigation to ultimate stage of trial that is sentencing of accused. A notion of fair trial requires
very sincere scientific approach of functioning of all the agencies involved in investigation,
prosecution and adjudication and administration of correctional system 11. The foundation for fair
trial are the impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the
matter before it, the jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person, the defendants must
be given an opportunity to be heard, judgment must upon lawful hearing, the right to hearing the
tribunal must considered the evidence presented without any bias, the evidence must be
substantive, the decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the gearing or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the partied affected. These elements provide a set of
minimum standards to fulfill before any one is condemned to sentence violation of any of the
standard amounts to be a ‘ violation of the due process rule of principle and as such it renders the
trial “unfair”, consequently the justice is denied. Right to fair trial, a balance between interest of
public safety and protection of suspect’s procedural right and it has been considered as the most
fundamental in order to protect the life and liberty of suspects from arbitrary encroachment of
the state’s police power.12

7
Laws of Nepal incompatible with fair trial standards, CeLRRd , January 2005, The Asia Foundation, p. 23
8
Yubaraj Sangroula , Concepts and Evolution of Human Rights- Nepalese Perspective, (KSL publication : 2005)
p. 267
9
Ibid p.24
10
Decline of fair trial in Asia, (Asian human rights commission: Feb 2005) p 3
11
Laws of Nepal incompatible with fair trial standards, CeLRRd , January 2005, The Asia Foundation, p. 24
12
Yubaraj Sangroula, Concepts and Evolution of Human Rights- Nepalese Perspective, ( KSL publication.:
2005), p. 269, 270, 271
2.2. Principles of Fair Trial Recognized by Nepal
The Article 20 of the Constitution of Nepal, 2072 is a basic guarantee of fair trial in Nepal. Nepal
has adopted the principle of fair trial which is the reflection of the international standards which
are as follow:

2.2.1. Principle of Equality13

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the
law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation and any
incitement to such discrimination.14
 Art 18(1) of Constitution of Nepal, 2072 B.S.
 Art 20 of Constitution of Nepal, 2072 B.S.
 Art 2(1) of ICCPR and Art 26 of ICCPR, Art 7 of UDHR
 The right to trial by a competent independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
The fundamental principle of fair trial is that the tribunal charged with the responsibility
of making decision in a case must be established by law and must be competent,
independent and impartial.
 Art 1- of UDHR, Art 14 of ICCPR

2.2.2.Principle of Legality 15
The right to fair hearing in criminal trials is specified by a number of concrete rights, such as the
right to be tried without undue delay, the right to prepare a defense, the right to defend oneself in
person or through counsel, the right to call and examine witness and the right to protection. It
also includes the right to public hearing, which is an essential safeguard of the fairness and
independence of the judicial process and a means of protecting public confidence in the justice
system16
 Art 20(9) and Art 20(10) of the of Constitution of Nepal, 2072 B.S.
 Art 10 of UDHR , Art 14(1) of ICCPR

As lord Denning “if the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything if must
carry with it a right in the acussed man to know the case which is made against him.” The
development of audi alteram partem principle has like many other legal concepts been eclectic.
An early group of cases was concerned with deprivation of offices 17 requiring notice and a
hearing prior to deprivation. Another somewhat later group involved in the clergy penalties or
disciplinary measures to which the clergy were subjected had to be preceded by notice and a

13
Prisoners legal aid manual, CeLRRd , 2064 p 5
14
Amnesty international, Fair Trial Mannual,(Amnesty International Publication: 1996)
15
Prisoners legal aid manual, CeLRRd , 2064 p 5
16
Amnesty international, Fair Trial Mannual,(Amnesty International Publication: 1996)
17
Bagg’s case 1615.11 co Rep. 93b, R v Chancellor of the university of Cambridge (1723) 1. str. 557, Fisher v
Jackson (1891) 2 ch. 824
hearing.18 In 19th century the audi alteram partem principle was applied to wide variety of bodies’
private as well as public clubs19, associations 20 and trade unions21 were included within its ambit.
The increase in the regularity role of public authorities provided further opportunity for the
generalized application of maxim. Thus in cooper v wandsworth board of works it was held that
the demolition powers vested in the defendant Board were to be subject to notice and hearing
requirements. The generality of application of audi alteram partem maxim and its flexibility in
operation were brought out by Lord Loreburn L.C who stated that the maxim applied to everyone
who decides anything while recognizing also that the manner in which a person’s case was heard
did not necessarily have to be the same as an ordinary trial.
To be a fair hearing an assumption is made that there must be three rights:22
1. Sufficient notice given to allow the case to be adequately prepared
2. That at any hearing a person will be entitled to know what evidence has been produced
against him or her.
3. There must be proper opportunity to contest correct or contradict any such evidence to
sates one’s case and raise any relevant matters before the tribunal.
4. to an opportunity to reply in a way that is appropriate for the circumstances
5. for his/her reply to be received and considered before the decision is made
6. to receive all relevant information before preparing his/her reply
7. to a reasonable chance to consider their position and prepare a response. However, what
is reasonable can vary according to the complexity of the issue, whether an urgent
decision is essential or any other relevant matter, and
8. to genuine consideration of any submission. The Delegate needs to be fully aware of
everything written or said by the clearance subject, and give proper and genuine
consideration to his/her case23
In addition a fair hearing may also include being provided with legal representation, the right to
cross examination, witness or reasons for a decision.

2.2.3.Principle of Presumption of Innocence

The right of every person charged with a criminal offence to be presumed innocent until and
unless proved guilty according to law after a fair trial. This principle includes the right not to be
compelled to testify or confess guilt, the right to remain silence, exclusion of evidence as a result
of torture or other compulsion.
 Art 20(5) , Art 20(7) of Constitution of Nepal, 2072 B.S.
18
Capel v Child (1832), 2 cr and J. 588, Bonkar v Evans (1850) 16 Q.B 163
19
Dwarkings v Antrobus (1881) 17 ch. D 615
20
Wood v Woard (1874) ,L.R 9 EX 190
21
Abbott v Sullivan (1952) 1.KB 189
22
Peter Leyland and Gordon Anthony, A text book on Administrative Law. Oxford University press (2005) P. 369
23
what are the principle of natural justice? Available at
http://www.ema.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Securityvetting_Whataretheprinciplesofnaturaljustice accessed
on 8th march 2010.
  Art 11 of UDHR, Art 10,art 14(2), Art 13(9) of ICCPR
 Art 15 of the convention against torture and Art 69(7) of ICC statute

2.2.4. The prohibition of Retrospective Application of Criminal Laws and of Double

Jeopardy
No one may be prosecuted for an act or omission which was not a criminal offence at the time
that it was committed. No one may be prosecuted more than once in the same jurisdiction for the
same offence.
 Article 20(4) of Constitution of Nepal, 2072 B.S.
 Art.11(2) of UDHR, Art 15(1) of ICCPR and Art 14(7) of ICCPR

2.3 Status of Right to Fair Trial in Pre Trail Stage

 The preamble of the constitution has explicitly made promise to people that it would
adopt and implement an independent and competent system of justice. Art 20 of the
Constitution of Nepal, 2072 B.S.is an immediate guarantee to the fair and competent
justice.
 Provision enshrined into the Art provides for safeguard to the citizens. Art 46 and 133(2)
of Constitution of Nepal, 2072 B.S. stands as provision of remedy for violations of
fundamental rights or basic rights is guaranteed by the constitution. The intervention of
the Supreme Court can even extent to judicial review of legislation denying of or posing
threat to unrestricted and exercise of fundamental rights.
 Clause 9 of the treaty act 1990, plainly upholds the sanctity of the International Human
right instruments meaning that no laws or action can be interpreted inconsistent to the
standards of fair trial and competent justice.
 By ratification of these international instruments, the kingdom of Nepal agreed to follow
the standards of criminal justice as stipulated therein. Therefore no excuses can be
tolerated in any level or forms of institutions, which are responsible to execute the fair
and competent criminal justice.

2.4 Legal Representation at Trial

 Arrested person at the very time of arrest has the provision of consulting the lawyer.
Those consultations will be secrete and no one can be denied of trail through the lawyer 24
has this type of provision in Art 20(2) and 20(3) of Constitution of Nepal, 2072 B.S., Sec
15(1) Citizen Act 2012., to consult lawyers within 24 hours of arrest.
 In the international case i.e. Miranda v Arijona 25 it has been said that to consult to the
legal advisor is the fundamental right of the person which should not be violated.

24
Prisoners legal Aid Manual, CeLRRd, 2064, Kathmandu p,51.
25
Miranda v Arijona, Laws of Nepal incompatible with fair trial standards, (Kathmandu, CeLLRd:2061) p,33 as
cited on prisoners Legal Aid Mannual, p,14
2.5 Arbitrary Arrest and Detention
 No one can be arrested without the pre- information and the reason of arrest. Art 20(1) of
Constitution of Nepal, 2072 B.S. has this provision. The arrest warrant should be given to
the person before arrest and with the genuine reason the procedure should be taken
against. (Sarkari Muddha Sambhandi Niyamawali 2055, rule 8(1) and (2). In the case of
Bajranga Chaitnya v Dhanusa District Court 26 who were not produced before the court
within 24 hours and the writ of Habeas Corpus was being issued to present the detainee
before the court.

CHAPTER III

3.1 Case brief

Fact of the case:

1) Name of the case: Parshuram Banjade on behalf of Yagya Murte Banjade V Durga Das
Shrestha, Bagmati Special Court, Singhadurbar, Kathmandu and others

2) Issue: To issue the writ of habeas corpus

3) Parties:
Plaintiff: Yagya Murte Banjade
Defendant: Durga Das Shrestha, Bagmati Special Court

4) What is the factual controversy?

The unlawful arrest of my brother Yagya Murte Banjade on 2027/1/18 has deprived him
of individual freedom. He was arrested by the people in simple attire on 2027/1/18 at
around 5 p.m. as he was walking around the new road and has been locked up in the
Central Jail, Kathmandu. The reason and authority behind the arrest of my brother is still
unknown. Later he was taken to the Kathmandu Police Line and interrogated by Durga
Das Shrestha unlawfully. Later my brother was given the warrant athough the heading of
the warrant read arrest warrant; it was invalid as per Clause 121 of Chapter on Court
Management of Muluki Ain.

My brother did not know the reason of arrest as guaranteed by Article 11(3) of the
Constitution. One cannot be arrested without the prior information and reason behind the
arrest. The punishment has been fixed without knowing his crime or any wrongdoing. My
brother has been besetting the punishment in prison but is unaware as to who made the
judgment or decision in his case. The defendant Durga Das Shrestha, refused to give the
copy of the Aadesh (Command) related to my brothers case. My brother is charged under
“Sangh Sanstha Niyantran garne Ain, 2016” but it is my brothers right to know if the
26
Bajranga Chaitnya v Dhanusa District Court, NKP,2047, Ankha no. 33 p,64.
 charge is one among many or all act which is considered a crime by the very act. It is
mandatory for the police officers to take the courts permission to arrest and detain a
person but the permission was not taken within 24 hours and was taken only on 20th of
Baisakh. On 2027/1/21 the Nepal Gazette is published regarding the delegation of His
Majesty’s Government’s power and the new circular is published tomorrow but the
information is published after one week of its circulation. The notice of 2027/1/22 despite
being against Article 11(5) of the Constitution i.e. a blunder and unlawful, Durga Das
Shrestha on the basis of very notice interrogated my brother and other detainees in the
small room near Singha Durbar. No information on the authority of Bagmati Special Court
in the following issue has been published or being notified in the Nepal Gazette.

5) Procedural History:

The request made by Parshuram Banjade to consider Article 16 of the Constitution and issue
the order of habeas corpus or any other order, also issue the warrant and free his brother
from the unlawful arrest and restore his fundamental rights has been presented before this
bench for the lawful decision.

6) Issue:
 Does Durga Das Shrestha, the chairman of Bagmati Special Court appointed as per the
National Directing Act, 2018 B.S. have the jurisdiction to look into the issue of
establishing Student Union/Association ?
 Can the writ of habeas corpus be issued if the act does not fall under his jurisdiction?

7) Parties Argument
 Plaintiff’s argument:
The act of the police officers was unlawful and this violated the principles and rule of
law. Durga Das Shrestha has no authority to decide on the case where he has no
jurisdiction.
 Defendant’s Argument:
Durga Das Shrestha has the authority as per the National Directing Act and has been
delegated the authority by His Majesty’s Government to decide on this case. The rule of
law is as valid as it was meant to be.

8) Judgement:

 The Chairman of Bagmati Special Court, Shree Durga Das Shrestha has the
jurisdiction to decide on this case and give decision whether to arrest the accused
and fine him as per “National Directing Act, 2018” or not.
 The division bench of the Supreme Court issued the writ of habeas corpus and
ordered the state to release the person who was arrested unlawfully. Because the act
 of establishing Student Union is not a crime in the purview of “National Directing
Act, 2018”.

9) Holding:
a. Durga Das Shrestha is the lawful authority as defined by National Directing Act, 2018
who has authority to decide on the case inflicting up to 6 months of imprisonment and Rs
500 fine. But the case of unlawful establishment of Student Union/ Association does not
fall under the purview of Section 5’ka’ of the very act. Therefore Durga Das Shrestha is a
authorized personnel as defined by law but has no jurisdiction to look into the cases
regarding the establishment of Student Union.
b. The writ of habeas corpus is issued by the Supreme Court.

10) Rational:
a. Judges are not the only authority to decide on the cases and check the legality of their
decisions.
b. In a welfare state, legislature has delegated its authority to the administration to make
rules and regulation regarding the life, property and liberty of a person.
c. The decision of the judge is judicial decision, the judicial decision of administrative
authority is quasi-judicial decision and the decision of administrative authority is
administrative decision. There has to be the use of judicial mind while deciding on the
quasi-judicial cases.
d. Judges as well as delegated authority or an entity must endorse audi alterum partem
principle while deciding on a case. No man shall be condemned unheard.
e. The prevalence of freedom is greater in the democratic nation than in the oligarchic
nation. If any act is not considered wrong by the law such act can be done in the
democratic society.
f. nemo judex in causasua. No man shall be judged in his own cause or, no one should be a
judge in his own case. Government like a person cannot be a judge in their own case, the
need of a fair and impartial judge is paramount for a fair proceeding.
g. Law has to be carefully used with vigilance in the cases which seeks to devoid a person
of their individual freedom and liberty.

CHAPTER IV

4.1. Analysis of case and conclusion

Natural justice is the common phenomenon. Lord Reid in case of Wiseman v Borneman (1971)
said that “ natural justice requires that the procedure for any tribunal who is acting judicially
shall be fair in all the circumstances. In Menakai Gandi v Union of India (1978), Natural Justice
is a great humanizing principle intended to invest law with fairness and to secure justice and over
the years it has grown into a wide pervasion rule affecting large area of administrative action.

The inquiry must always be done in fairness in action. Right to hearing is one of the type of
Natural Justice. Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Bodies uses the basic principle and the values of the
judiciary like right to hearing, right against biasness, and right to get the reasoned decision. The
right to hearing is that which protects other rights of the individual. If the right to hearing about
the reason of their arrest is informed then they can search for the alternative to protect and to
defend them.

The right of hearing can be exercised in the pre hearing while they are detained and the case is
running in the authority and post hearing while the case has been decided again they do have to
right to know what is the decision of the case, and go to the higher authority for the adjudication
of the case in case of non-satisfaction of the decision. Our constitution has also given the place
for the right to hearing as a fundamental right as prescribed above.

If we analyze the situation of right to hearing in the quasi-judicial bodies it is seen that the
concept is applied while adjudicating the cases. Our legal system has the provision of not only
pre hearing or the hearing case but it has the provision of post hearing of the case. Sec 193, of
Court management chapter of civil code has the provision of post hearing of the case. Though
the quasi-judicial bodies perform the judicial function to protect their own interest where there is
individual as their opponent, this principle is seen to be applied more in the Land Reform
Commission where the case is more likely to be filed.

Though, Durga Das Shrestha is the lawful authority as defined by National Directing Act, 2018
who has authority to decide on the case on the punishment ranging up to 6 months of
imprisonment and Rs 500 fine but, the case of unlawful establishment of Student Union/
Association does not fall under the purview of Section 5’ka’ of the very act. Therefore Durga
Das Shrestha is authorized personnel as defined by law but has no jurisdiction to look into the
cases regarding the establishment of Student Union.

Here the court textually interpreted the statute, National Directing Act, 2018 B.S. The judge
adhered to the objective meaning of the legal provision mentioned in Section 5 (ka) and literally
interpreted the text of a statute to determine the meaning of the legislation.

Similarly, on addressing the question whether the writ of habeas corpus can be issued if the
authority to prosecute the act of establishing Student Union/ Association falls under the
jurisdiction of Durga Das Shrestha?

The court in this case also used the contextualist approach to analyze the fact. The use of
contextualist approach in understanding of a problem leads a person to relate the fact with the
standard of what is and what is not. The court in this case assessed the context when this case
was filed. On the one hand Panchayati Government was taking its action on the rebel and trying
to discourage any kind of uprising in the nation and on the other hands the claim was that the
rights embodied in the Constitution of the people was encroached by the Nepal Government.

The Supreme Court of Nepal had to uphold the rights enshrined by the various articles of UDHR,
ICCPR and other international instruments which are the basic elements or the minimum
standard for a fair trial and uphold the constitution of Nepal.

The court being the guardian of the fundamental rights of people has the responsibility to protect
the rights of the suspects because there is a game of state versus the individual. State wields huge
power and processes strongly organized for interrogating the suspect and collecting evidence
against him/her. The same circumstances were not available for suspects to prove his/her
innocence. Again the suspects is in the custody of prosecutor where is always risk of the state
being prejudicial to the detainee hence they should be protected by the lawyers.

That is why examining the situation and trying to minimize the risk of violations of human rights
the division bench of the Supreme Court issued the writ of habeas corpus and ordered the state to
release the person who was arrested unlawfully because the act of establishing Student Union is
not a crime in the purview of “National Directing Act, 2018” and gave the rational that

a) Judges as well as delegated authority or an entity must endorse audi alterum partem
principle while deciding on a case. No man shall be condemned unheard.
a. The prevalence of freedom is greater in the democratic nation than in the oligarchic
nation. If any act is not considered wrong by the law such act can be done in the
democratic society.
b. nemo judex in causasua. No man shall be judged in his own cause or, no one should be a
judge in his own case. Government like a person cannot be a judge in their own case, the
need of a fair and impartial judge is paramount for a fair proceeding.
c. Law has to be carefully used with vigilance in the cases which seeks to devoid a person
of their individual freedom and liberty.

Therefore, the court aptly used the philosophical approach of textualism and contextualism in the
case to protect the fundamental rights of the person detained in the custody by the Government
officials.

3.2 Conclusion

The right to be heard is a very important constituent of the principle of natural justice. It not only
gives an opportunity to the parties to present their case but also inculcates the confidence of
deliverance of justice. There are cases which are based on documentary evidences and right to
have personal hearing does not appear to be of significance but still the court has been inclined to
grant the right to hearing to the parties because there is no harm in granting such opportunities.
The second vital component of right to be heard is the sufficient notice to allow for preparation
of defense.

The right to cross-examine exists or not will depend upon the gravity and facts of the case. But in
the courts in modern time it has been recognized as one of the prime component of the right to be
heard. Lord Denning expressed the view that there remains a difference between what he called
prima facie decision and a final decision. The reason for this distinction is that the party is going
to get an opportunity to present his point of view before the process to arrive at final decision
comes to conclusion.

For example, the ward police offices or popularly-elected institutions could be the first bodies to
address cases regarding untouchability and maltreatment, domestic violence, dowry, and alleged
witchcraft. However, the right to a fair trial would 8 Human Rights in the Constitution have to be
guaranteed in such a case. This would include the right to a public hearing before an independent
and impartial tribunal within reasonable time, the presumption of innocence, and other minimum
rights for those charged in a criminal case (adequate time and facilities to prepare their defense,
access to legal representation, right to examine witnesses against them or have them examined,
right to the free assistance of an interpreter).

Quasi-judicial bodies have the specific jurisdiction created by parliament. The procedures
applied in regular court may not apply in quasi- judicial bodies. The outcome can be predicted
due to the policy of the quasi -judicial bodies. They are not independent body. They have the
limited works to be done regarding the judicial matters its work is not to interpret the law. Its
main duty is to protect the particular rights like in case of forest officer he has the responsibility
of protecting the forest nothing more than that if somebody does the act of deforestation or the
act which is against the forest protection act they are only responsible to give the punishment or
fine. During the prosecution the principle of natural justice is followed. Though there is many
more right of the offender but it is the authority where the case is filed against the wrongdoer and
it is the same authority who is judge to decide the case. Now the question of doubt arises whether
the administrative personnel will use the principle of natural justice as their main motive is to see
the case in favor of themselves. If we have to see the Nepalese case the principle natural justice
in terms of right to hearing is applied which can be analyzed from the cases which are seen
above. Mostly the right to hearing is seen to be applied form the time of arrest to the final
decision of the case. All type of hearing like form the pre before arrest and hearing and the post
hearing is seen in the provision above. Though form the case it cannot be concluded that all the
procedures are followed in the cases because there are many more issues in the natural justice
which cannot be analyzed just analyzing the cases. It is also not seen from the cases that due to
not obeying the person’s right to hearing the cases has not seen to be filed and made the case
void not for following the procedure. For the concrete analysis the broad research form the
baseline to the top about the quasi-judicial bodies and the interpretation of the case is to be done.

Bibliography

 B.P Acharya , Administrative Law, pairavi Prakasan Books and Stationary Center(2002).
 P.P Craig, Administrative Law, sweet and Maxwell universal law publishing co. Pvt.
(1996).
 B.P Acharya , Administrative Law, pairavi Prakasan Books and Stationary Center(2002).
 Acharya , Administrative Law, pairavi Prakasan Books and Stationary Center(2002)
 P.P Craig, Administrative Law, sweet and Maxwell universal law publishing co. Pvt.
(1996).
 Peter Leyland and Gordon Anthony, A text book on Administrative Law. Oxford
University press (2005)
 H.W.R Wade, Administrative Law, 5th edn. (1982)
 Gayendra Bahadur, Outline of Procedural Law, Pairabhi Prakashan (2063)
 Griffith and street, Principles of Administrative Law, (3rd ed. 1963)
 what are the principle of natural justice? Available at
http://www.ema.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Securityvetting_Whataretheprinciplesofn
aturaljustice accessed on 9th November,2020.
.