A petition was filed by tenants challenging an order concerning a commercial building. The dispute involved the 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐧𝐣𝐨𝐲𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 of the premises. The High Court directed that the record be examined 𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐲. The respondent stated that the matter was 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, while the petitioner maintained that the arrangement was 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝. A 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 was also made.The court examined the 𝐣𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 and whether the 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 was maintainable. The petitioner sought a 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐫𝐢 against an administrative decision. A 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐚𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐩𝐮𝐬 had no application. The judge cited the 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐬 and directed production of earlier judgments.The petitioner relied upon a 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 and alleged unlawful possession. The respondent stated that the parties were 𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧. Counsel argued that the 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐟𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲 had caused 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐬, while the respondent relied upon 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲. The 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐢𝐭 was examined.The 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐫 submitted that previous proceedings had not determined the rights. The 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐭 disputed this and raised the 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 whether the claim was barred. The 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭 had participated earlier.𝐇𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬, the court directed examination of the evidence. The witness stated that he had 𝐟𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 that the premises remained in his possession. Another witness was 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐟 and produced the lease. An 𝐮𝐧𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 was also examined.At the next hearing, counsel 𝐯𝐞𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐞𝐝 that the petition was filed to delay proceedings. The petitioner 𝐯𝐞𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 that the order was contrary to the record. The court considered 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 and whether the injury was the 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐱𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭 of the action. 𝐖𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 was alleged but remained unsupported.The authority was directed to 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐞 the documents. The court could act 𝐬𝐮𝐨 𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐮 where circumstances warranted. The petitioner relied upon the 𝐇𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐮 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐧𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞, whereas the respondent cited the 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐑𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐭. A 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 principle of administrative fairness was cited.A separate allegation of 𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐲 𝐧𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 was made against a caretaker. Counsel submitted that his conduct was intended to 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 the tenants. The court held that an 𝐚𝐝𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭 person could not automatically be held liable. 𝐔𝐧𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 was unnecessary.The court stated that 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐥𝐚𝐰 that an authority must consider relevant material before passing an adverse order. The judge said 𝐦𝐚𝐲 𝐈 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 to clarify that the order would not determine the ultimate rights. In the 𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐬, the authority was required to consider the validity, contraction or execution raised by the respondent. The petitioner alleged 𝐮𝐧𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧, while the respondent denied it. The matter was 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 of the authority, and 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬 had to be proved.The court observed that 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, but directed independent examination by a 𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐌𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞. A 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 was directed after notice to both sides. The case was remitted for 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐡 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, and all contentions were left open. (512) Submit