Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1.1. Principles of Natural Justice Not Violated

    Uploaded by

    Navneet Singh
    6 views1 page
    The document argues that the findings of the Director General (DG) should not be questioned because the DG followed principles of natural justice and fair procedure. It states that the DG heard both parties, gave them a chance to be heard, and fairly considered their arguments. The document also argues that administrative decisions are presumed to be made in good faith even if the powers conferred allow for subjective decision making.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Nirma.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document argues that the findings of the Director General (DG) should not be questioned because the DG followed principles of natural justice and fair procedure. It states that the DG heard both parties, gave them a chance to be heard, and fairly considered their arguments. The document also argues that administrative decisions are presumed to be made in good faith even if the powers conferred allow for subjective decision making.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    6 views1 page

    1.1. Principles of Natural Justice Not Violated

    Uploaded by

    Navneet Singh
    The document argues that the findings of the Director General (DG) should not be questioned because the DG followed principles of natural justice and fair procedure. It states that the DG heard both parties, gave them a chance to be heard, and fairly considered their arguments. The document also argues that administrative decisions are presumed to be made in good faith even if the powers conferred allow for subjective decision making.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    1. THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE D.

    G ARE NOT ERRONEOUS, HASTY AND SUFFERING FROM

    OVERREACH
    It is most humbly contended that the finding of the DG are not to be questioned in the current
    proceedings and even if it is brought to adjudication, it must be noted that § 36 of the Act provides
    that D.G shall be guided by the principles of natural justice in discharge of its functions 1 which have
    been complied with and his actions didn’t suffer from overreach. Administrative decisions in exercise
    of powers even if conferred in subjective terms are presumed to be made in good faith.2

    1.1. Principles of Natural Justice not violated


    It is most humbly submitted that the DG has performed his functions in a proper manner. The
    powers of the D.G3 should be in conformity with the principles of natural justice4as this observance
    of natural justice is a pragmatic requirement of fair play in action.5

    1.1.1. Fair chance given to both parties.


    A person has a constitutional right of being heard and represented, and the person
    affected as such may possess a legitimate expectation6 of being given an opportunity of
    speaking in matters affecting his interest as per the rule of Audi Aleterm Partem.7Fairness
    is that every citizen to be treated fairly8 in his interactions with the state and its
    instrumentality.9In this matter, the DG not only heard both the parties but gave fair
    consideration to their arguments.
    1.1.2.

    1
    HERBERT HOVENKAMP, FEDERAL ANTITRUST POLICY: THE LAW OF COMPETITION 504 (4d ed. 2011).
    2
    Vodafone India Ltd. v. The Competition Commission of India, MANU/MH/2284/2017 (India).
    3
    Sebi v. Alka Syntehtic Ltd., (1999) 95 Comp. Cas. 772 (India).
    4
    Allahabad Bank v. Radha Krishanan Maity, (1999) 97 Comp Cas. 117 (SC) (India).
    5
    D.K Yadav v. J.M.A Industries Ltd., (1993) 3 SCC 259 (India).
    6
    A.R Antulay v. R.S Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602 (India).
    7
    D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1216 (8th ed. 2012).
    8
    D.K Yadav v. J.M.A Industries Ltd., (1993) 3 SCC 259 (India).
    9
    WHR WADE & C.F FORYTH, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 494 (9th ed. 2008).

    You might also like