ISSUE 2 PETITIONER

In Ridge v. Baldwin and Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission the

House of Lords in England has made it clear that breach of natural justice nullifies the
order made in breach. If that is so then the order made in violation of the principles of
natural justice was of no value.
Ritnand Balved Education Foundation v NFAC W.P.(C) 5537/2021, TS-426-HC-2021(Del) –
The Assessee contended that the revenue was obliged to grant a personal hearing to the
petitioner, if a request was made in that behalf.  The Assessee submitted that in this case a
specific request was made by the petitioner and therefore assessment order passed without
granting opportunity of hearing is bad in law.  The HC observed that since the statute itself
makes the provision for grant of personal hearing, the revenue cannot veer away from the
same.  The HC set aside the order and directed the Revenue to grant personal hearing.  Same
view is taken in Satia Industries Limited v NFAC TS-423-HC-2021-(DEL)
In the case of Biecco Lawrie Ltd v. State of West Bengal [2009] 10 SCC 32, the Supreme Court
observed as under: “One of the essential ingredients of fair hearing is that a person should be
served with a proper notice, i.e. a person has a right to notice. Notice should be clear and precise so
as to meet and make an effective defence. Denial of notice and opportunity to respond result in
making the administrative  Opportunity not a rigid doctrine decision as vitiated.

he aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively, to

prevent miscarriage of justice as also observed by the hon’ble Supreme Court in
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 150.

R.B Shreeram Durga Prasad & Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement

Commission (1969) 176 ITR 169 (SC)
“Order passed in violation of principle of natural justice is void and nullity.
This Court is further of the view that where an action entails civil consequences, like in the present
matter, observance of natural justice would be warranted and unless the law specifically excludes the
application of natural justice, it should be taken as implanted into the scheme. The settled position in
law is that where exercise of a power results in civil consequences to citizens, unless the statute
specifically rules out the application of natural justice, the rules of natural justice would apply, including
the right to personal hearing. Denial of such opportunity is not in consonance with the scheme of the
Rule of Law governing our society. [See: Raghunath Thakur vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (1989) 1 SCC 229].
In fact, the opportunity to provide hearing before making any decision is considered to be a basic
requirement in Court proceedings.

Further, in the case of Jesus Sales Corporation vs the Union Of India,

the Delhi high court observed that on the basis of decisions of the
Supreme Court, high xourts and other English decisions, the ratio
which can be extracted of all these decisions is that the person
concerned who has to pay duty and penalty should have a reasonable
opportunity of presenting his case. Any decision taken without
affording reasonable opportunity to the concerned parties would be
violative of the principles of natural justice. The reasonable
opportunity has to be governed according to circumstances and the
domain of practicability as mentioned in Russel v. Duke of Norfolk –
1949 (1) All ER 109. 
Effect of Breach of Natural Justice When the authority is required to observe the principle of
natural justice in passing an order but fails to do so, the general judicial opinion is that the order is
void. In England, in the case of Ridge v. Baldwin [21], the court held the decision of the authority
void on the ground of the breach of the rule of fair hearing.

However, in circumstances where procedural fairness has not been afforded

to the aggrieved, the decision that arose from that procedure may be void for
lack of natural justice/procedural fairness. Issues of natural justice and
procedural fairness frequently arise in the context of employment disputes or
administrative appeals and arose in the case of McCleverty v Australian
Karting Assoc Ltd [2015] QSC 323 The right to be heard is a fundamental
principle of the requirements of procedural fairness and goes to the heart of
the fair administration of justice. 

The failure to conform to the principle of natural justice of audi alterim partem would make a
judicial or quasi-judicial order void. In Spaceman v. Plumstead District Board of Works Lord
Selborn said :

"There could be no decision within the meaning of the statute if there is anything done
contrary to the essence of justice."
 D. K. Agrawal
v.
Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India*

Recording of reasons is a principle of natural justice and every judicial/quasi judicial order must
be supported by reasons to be recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in
the decision making process. The person who is adversely affected wants to know as to why his
submissions have not been accepted.. Unless an adjudicatory body is required to
give reasons and make findings of fact indicating the evidence upon which it relied, there is no
way of knowing whether the concerned body genuinely applied itself to and evaluated the
arguments and the evidence advanced at the hearing.. A reasoneddecision, on the other hand, will
have the appearance of fairness and justice. 

In Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Woolcombers Workers Union [1974] 3 SCC 318 while dealing

with an award of an Industrial Tribunal, this Court found that the award stated only the
conclusions and did not providing the supporting reasons. The matter was remitted back to the
Tribunal to record fresh findings and it was observed that providing reasons in support of the
conclusion is essential. The reasoning has been enumerated below:
"5. …The giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi-judicial
authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First, it is
calculated to prevent unconscious unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions..
Second, it is a well-known principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear
to be done. Unreasoned conclusions may be just but they may not appear to be just to those who
read them.  So it is necessary to emphasise that judicial and quasi-judicial authorities should
always give reasons in support of their conclusions."
State of West Bengal v. Atul Krishna Shaw 1991 (Supp) (1) SCC 414 has held that failure to
give reasons does not instill public confidence in the correctness of the decisions rendered by the
adjudicatory bodies. It was held thus:
"7. ……it is indisputably true that it is a quasi-judicial proceeding. If the appellate authority had
appreciated the evidence on record and recorded the findings of fact, those findings are binding
on this Court or the High Court. By process of judicial review, we cannot appreciate the evidence
and record our own findings of fact. If the findings are based on no evidence or based on
conjectures or surmises and no reasonable man would, on given facts and circumstances, come to
the conclusion reached by the appellate authority on the basis of the evidence on record, certainly
this Court would oversee whether the findings recorded by the appellate authority is based on no
evidence or beset with surmises or conjectures. Giving of reasons is an essential element of administration of justice. A right
to reason is, therefore, an indispensable part of sound system of judicial review. Reasoneddecision is not only for the purpose of showing that the citizen is receiving
justice, but also a valid discipline for the Tribunal itself. Therefore, statement of reasons is one of the essentials of justice. "