ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

UNIT-III
PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
 Principles of Natural Justice
 Concept of Natural Justice:
• The term natural justice has not been defined in any enactment, rules or
regulations. Eminent Jurists and Courts in England and India have defined
and explained the concept of Natural Justice.
• Natural justice is justice based on human values and good conscience
following a just and fair procedure.
• PNJ control all actions of public authorities by applying rules relating to
reasonableness, good faith and justice, equity and good conscience.
• Natural justice is a part of public law which relates to administration of
justice. These are indeed great assurance of justice and fairness.
 Natural Justice
 Growth of Concept of Natural Justice:
• The word ‘Natural Justice’ manifests justice according to one’s own
conscience. It is derived from the Roman Concept ‘jus - naturale’ and ‘Lex
naturale’ which meant principle of natural law, natural justice, eternal law,
natural equity or good conscience.
• Lord Evershed - “Natural Justice is the natural sense of what is right and
wrong.”
1. Rules of Natural Justice have developed with the growth of civilization.
2. Divine Law or Natural Law to which all laws and actions must conform.
3. Natural Justice implies fairness, reasonableness, equity, and equality. It is
a concept of common law.
 Natural Justice

4. Natural Justice represents higher procedural principles

developed by Judges which every administrative authority
must follow in taking any decision adversely affecting the
rights of a private individual.

5. Natural Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and

values which are universal. Application of PNJ can improve
the quality of administrative decision, enforce rule of law
and accountability in administration and show respect for
human dignity.
 Natural Justice
6. The basis of the PNJ is Rule of Law.
7. Earliest expression of ‘PNJ’ could be found in philosophical expressions of
Roman jurists.
8. In ancient days, the Greeks had accepted the principle that “no man should
be condemned unheard”.

9. NJ meant many things like Divine Law, jus gentium (law of nations) and
common law of the nation.
10. Indeed, from the legendary days of Adam and of Kautilya’s Arthashastra, the
Rule of Law has had this stamp of NJ which makes it social justice.
11. The PNJ have enriched law and Constitutions the world over.
(Preamble, Art.311, 14, 21- duty to act fairly)
 Natural Justice
 Definition

1. The Committee on Ministers’ powers:

• “There are certain cannons of judicial conduct to which all

tribunals and persons who have to give judicial or quasi-
judicial decisions ought to conform. The principles on which
they rest are, we think, implicit in the rule of law. Their
observance is demanded by our notional sense of justice.”
2. Viscount Haldane :

• “Those whose duty it is to decide must act judicially. They

must deal with the question referred to them with out bias
and they must give to each of these parties the opportunity of
adequately presenting the case made. The decision must
come to the spirit and with the sense of responsibility of a
tribunal whose duty it is to meet out justice.”
 Natural Justice

3. The US Supreme Court:

 “ There is violation of due process whenever there is a breach

of PNJ so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our
people as to be ranked as fundamental.”
 Natural Justice

4. De Smith:

• “The term ‘natural justice’ expresses the close relationship

between the common law and moral principles and it has an
impressive ancestry. It is also known as ‘substantial justice’,
‘fundamental justice’, ‘universal justice’ or ‘fair play in action’.
 Object of Natural Justice:

a. To secure justice.
b. To prevent miscarriage of justice.
c. To protect fundamental liberties and rights of
subjects.
 Against whom natural justice may be enforced:

a) Formerly, courts had taken the view that the PNJ were
inapplicable to administrative orders.

b) Wanchoo J. :

 ”The compulsion of hearing before passing the order implied

in the maxim ‘audi alteram partem’ applies only to judicial
and quasi - judicial proceedings”.
c) Lord Denning:

• “It is well settled that, a statutory body which is

entrusted by statute with a discretion, must act fairly.
It doesn't matter whether its functions are described
as judicial or quasi-judicial on the one hand, or as
administrative on the other hand.”
 Natural Justice
 Natural Justice: There are two rules of Natural
Justice.

I. The rule against bias (‘nemo bebet esse judex in

propria causa’), or "no man shall be a judge in his
own case or cause"), and
II. The right to a fair hearing (‘audi alteram partem’) or
"hear the other side").
a) Notice
b) Right to Hearing
 Natural Justice

I. THE RULE AGAINST BIAS (‘nemo bebet esse judex in

propria causa’)
 Based on three maxims:

a) “No man shall be a judge in his own case or cause.”

b) “Justice should not only be done but manifestly and

undoubtedly be seen to be done”
c) “Judges, like Caesar’s wife should be above
suspicion.”
 Natural Justice
 TYPES OF BIAS:

1. Personal Bias:

a) A.K. Kraipak v. UOI (AIR 1970 SC 150)

• In pursuance of the Indian Forest Service (Initial Recruitment) Regulation,
1966, framed under Rule 4(1) of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules
made under the All India Services Act, 1951, a Special Selection Board was
constituted for selecting officers to the Indian Forest Service in the senior and
junior scales from officers serving in the forest department of the State of
Jammu and Kashmir.
• One of the members of the Board was the Chief Conservator of Forests of the
State, as required by the Regulations. He was a Conservator of forests appointed
as Acting Chief Conservator superseding another Conservator of Forests whose
appeal to the State Government against his supersession was pending at the time
the selections by the Board were made.
• In this case, Naquishband, who was the acting Chief Conservator of
Forests, was a member of Selection Board and was also a candidate for
selection to All India cadre of the Forest Service. Though he did not take
part in the deliberations of the Board when his name was considered and
approved, the SC held that `there was a real likelihood of a bias for the
mere presence of the candidate on the Selection Board may adversely
influence the selection of the other members‘.
b) Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. State of
Bihar (AIR 1960 SC 468)
• The petitioners were granted mining licence for 99 years in 1947.
But in 1953, The Secretary of Revenue Board, sent a notice to the
petitioners to show cause with in 15 days why their licence should
not be cancelled for violation of Sections 10, 12 and 14 of the Bihar
Mica Act, 1947. The petitioners submitted a written reply denying
the allegations. Two years later, the Govt. of Bihar issued
notification cancelling the licence under Sec. 25(1) (c) of the Act.
• The action of the Govt. was challenged on the ground of personal
bias. The SC quashed the order of the Govt. on the ground of
personal bias.
 Natural Justice

 REAL LIKELIHOOD OF BIAS/REASONABLE SUSPICION

OF BIAS - Res Ipsa Loquitor – The thing speaks for
itself.
• “Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion
that there has been an improper interference with
the course of justice.”- Lord Hewart C.J.
 Natural Justice

• “Justice must be rooted in confidence; and confidence

is destroyed when right minded people go away
thinking” - Lord Denning
 Natural Justice

 G.N. Nayak v. Goa University (2002) 2 SCC 712

• In this case, HOD, Marine Science Dept. appreciated the work
of an Associate Professor (Reader) in his confidential report.
HOD also a member of the Departmental Promotion
Committee to consider such Junior Faculty along with others
for promotion. The DPC recommended the Junior Faculty for
promotion which was challenged on the ground of personal
bias actuated by an element of personal interest.
 Natural Justice

• The object of scrutiny, in this case, is the selection of the

appellant as Professor of Marine Science in the University of
Goa. The appellant's selection was challenged under Article
226 of the Constitution of India by the respondent who was
himself a candidate for selection to the post. The challenge
was upheld by the High Court.

• The SC held that unless preference is unreasonable and is

based on self-interest, it will not vitiate an administrative
decision.
2. PECUNIARY BIAS:

a) J. Mohapatra & Co. v. State of Orissa (AIR 1984 SC 1572)

• In the State of Orissa, there was no statutory rule or regulation prescribing the
procedure for selection of books for general reading to be kept in school and college
libraries, except the State Government's periodical administrative instructions in the
form of resolutions constituting committees namely, an Assessment Sub-Committee, a
Distribution Sub-Committee and a Purchase Committee to which Government officials as
well as non-officials were appointed as members. The procedure followed was that each
year the Member-Secretary of the Purchase Committee would call upon publishers and
authors by advertisements given in local newspapers to submit books for consideration.

• The Assessment Sub-Committee could then consider the books so submitted and
thereafter recommend a list of books which, according to it, were suitable for general
reading by school and college students. The Purchase Committee would consider the
recommendations made by the Assessment Sub-Committee prepares a final list and
submit it for approval to the State Government which could reject any book out of the list
so submitted without giving any reason. The decision of the State Government regarding
the assessment, selection purchase and distribution of books was made final.

• The selection of the books for the years 1980, 1981 and 1982 was made in this fashion.
 Natural Justice

• The SC quashed the decision of the Textbooks' selection committee

because some of its members were also the authors of the books, which
were considered for selection. The Court concluded that withdrawal of
person at the time of consideration of his books is not sufficient as the
element of quid pro quo with other members cannot be eliminated.
 Natural Justice

3. BIAS AS TO SUBJECT MATTER:

a) G.P. Nageshwar Rao v. APSRTC (AIR 1959 SC 308)

• In this case the SC quashed the decision of the AP Govt.

nationalising road transport, on the ground that the Secretary
of APSRTC who gave hearing was interested in the subject
matter.
 Natural Justice

4. DEPARTMENTAL BIAS/INSTITUTIONAL BIAS

a) Krishna Bus Service Pvt Ltd. v. State of Haryana (AIR 1985
SC 1651)
• By a notification dated March 16, 1973 called the Punjab
Motor Vehicles (Haryana First Amendment) Act Rules, 1973,
the General Manager Haryana Roadways was conferred
with the powers exercisable by a Deputy Superintendent of
Police by virtue of the addition of clause (d) in Rule 10:2 of
the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940.
• In this case, private bus operators had alleged that the Gen.
Manager of Haryana Roadways who was rival in business in
the State couldn’t be expected to discharge his duties in a fair
and reasonable manner and would be too lenient in
inspecting the vehicles belonging to his own Dept.
• The reason for quashing the notification according to the SC
was the conflict b/w the duty and the interest of the Dept.
and consequential erosion of public confidence in
administrative justice.
 Natural Justice

5. POLICY NOTION BIAS:

 T. Goivindaraja Mudaliar v. State of T.N. (AIR 1973 SC 974)

• The T.N. Govt. decided in principle to nationalize road transport and

appointed a committee to frame the scheme. The Home Secretary was
made a member of this committee. Later on, the scheme of
nationalization was finalized, published and objections were heard by the
Home Secretary.
• It was contended that the hearing was vitiated by the rule against bias
because the Secretary already made up his mind on the question of
nationalization, as he was a member of the committee which took the
policy decision.
 Natural Justice

• The SC rejected the challenge on the ground that the

Secretary as member of the committee did not finally
determine any issue as to foreclose his mind. He simply
helped the Govt. in framing the scheme.
 Natural Justice

6. PRE- CONCEIVED NOTION BIAS:

a) Kondala Rao v. APSRTC (AIR 1961 SC 82)
• In this case the SC didn’t quash the order of Minister, who had
heard the objections of private operators, nationalising road
transport on the ground that the same Minister had presided
over a meeting only a few days earlier in which nationalisation
was favoured.
• The Court rejected the contention on the ground that the
decision of the committee was not final and irrevocable but
merely a policy decision.
 Natural Justice

7. BIAS ON ACCOUNT OF OBSTINACY

 A.U. Kureshi v. High Court of Gujarat (2009) 11 SCC 84
• The appellant was a Judicial Officer who joined the Gujarat
Judicial Service in 1991 and was posted as Civil Judge (Junior
Division) at the District Court, Bharuch. The High Court of Gujarat
(respondent) received a complaint wherein it was alleged that a
case bearing Criminal Case No. 2059/89 under the Gambling Act,
1867 was listed for hearing in the appellant's Court and that the
appellant had acquitted the accused and also returned the money
seized from the accused from the scene of occurrence.
• On the basis of this complaint the respondent issued a charge-
sheet to the appellant and the appellant submitted his reply.
• A departmental inquiry was initiated against the appellant and the
concerned Inquiry officer submitted his report to the High Court of
Gujarat stating that the charges levelled against the appellant had
been proved.
• On the basis of this report, a show-cause notice was issued to the
appellant. The appellant filed his reply to this show-cause notice.
Dissatisfied with the appellant's reply, the High Court decided that it
would be appropriate to dismiss the appellant from service. By
letter dated October 25, 2001, the High Court of Gujarat
recommended to the State Government that the appellant be
dismissed from service and accordingly an order was passed.
• The appellant, being aggrieved, filed Special Civil Application No.
6164 of 2002 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, which
has been dismissed by the impugned order.
• In this case one of the judges of the Gujarat HC considered
the misconduct of a member of subordinate judiciary on
administrative side(disciplinary committee). He then decided
the petition filed by the delinquent officer on judicial side.
• The SC held that there was reasonable apprehension of bias.
 Natural Justice

a) The doctrine of necessity

 Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana(AIR 1987 SC
454)
• The question in this case was -
 Whether the selection of candidate would vitiate for bias if
close relative of a members of the Public Service Commission
is appearing for selection?
 Natural Justice
 The SC laid down the following propositions:

1. Such member must withdraw altogether from the entire

selection process otherwise all selection would be vitiated on
account of reasonable likelihood of bias affecting the process of
selection.

2. This is not applicable in case of Constitutional Authority like PSC

whether Central or State. This is so because if a member was to
withdraw altogether from the selection process, no other person
save a member can be substituted in his place and it may
sometimes happen that no other member is available to take the
place of such a member and the functioning of PSC may be
affected.
 Natural Justice

3. In such a case, it is desirable that the member must

withdraw from participation in interview of such a
candidate and he should also not take part in the
discussions.
• The SC conceptualised the doctrine of necessity in this case.
 Natural Justice
II. The right to a fair hearing (‘audi alteram partem
’) or "hear the other side")
• This rule covers various stages through which administrative
adjudication passes starting from notice to final determination.

 Right to fair hearing thus includes:-

1. Duty to act judicially or the duty to act fairly
2. Right to notice
3. Right to know evidence against him
4. Right to present case and evidence/oral hearing
5. Right to rebut adverse evidence
i. Right to cross examination
ii. Right to legal representation
 Natural Justice

6. No evidence should be taken at he back of other party

7. Report of the enquiry to be shown to the other party
8. Reasoned decisions/speaking orders
9. Institutional decision or who decides must hear
10. Rule against dictation
11. Financial incapacity to attend the enquiry
12. Decision post-haste( Administrative authority must not run
rush decisions)

 Post – decisional hearing

 Natural Justice

II. The right to a fair hearing (‘audi alteram

partem’) or "hear the other side")

• Hear the other side or both the sides must be heard or one
should not be condemned unheard. In other words, No
person accused of any charge or likely to suffer any civil
consequences, must be adjudged unless and until he is aware
of the proceedings together with a notice thereon and an
opportunity to present his case fully.
 Natural Justice

1) Duty to act judicially/the duty to act fairly

 Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. UOI (1973)1 SCC 380)
• On 31st May 1969, Government of India passed an order appointing a Committee
for investigation into the affairs of the Company under the provisions of S. 15 of the
Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. In due course, the
Investigating Committee completed its inquiry and submitted its report to the
Government.
• On 24th November, 1970, the Government of India passed an Order under S. 18-A
of the Act authorizing the Gujarat State Textile Corporation to take over the
management of the Company for a period of five years from the date of
publication of that order in the Official Gazette.
• The takeover was challenged on the ground of violation of PNJ before HC which
dismissed the petition.
• The SC though didn’t interfere with the order on the ground that no prejudice was
caused to the Mill Co. yet observed:
• “The only essential that has to be kept in mind in all cases that the administrative
authority concerned should act fairly, impartially and reasonably.”
 Natural Justice

2) Right to notice

• Hear the other side or both the sides must be heard or one
should not be condemned unheard. In other words, No
person accused of any charge or likely to suffer any civil
consequences, must be adjudged unless and until he is aware
of the proceedings together with a notice thereon and an
opportunity to present his case fully.
 Union of India v. Narendra Singh (2008) 2 SCC 750

• The respondent herein was working as Accountant in the Office of the Accountant
General, Madhya Pradesh, Branch Office, Bhopal. By an order dated January 1 st
1990, he was mistakenly promoted as Senior Accountant (Functional). After about
four years, the Department realized that the promotion given to the respondent
was erroneous and he was not eligible to be promoted. The mistake was,
therefore, sought to be corrected.
• A notice under Rule 31-A of the Fundamental Rules, 1922 was issued to the
respondent informing him that he could not have been promoted as Senior
Accountant as he had not passed Departmental Examination of Accountants as
required by law. He was, hence, asked to show cause why the promotion given to
him erroneously should not be cancelled.

• By a reply dated February 16th 1994, the respondent contended that he was
eligible and qualified for getting promotion and accordingly he was promoted. He
also asserted that he was performing his functions and discharging his duties
efficiently and there was no occasion to revert him. According to him, there was no
need to clear Departmental Examination for Accountants and the notice was
required to be discharged.
 Natural Justice

• After considering the reply submitted by the respondent, the Principal

Accountant General, vide his order dated March 29th 1994, cancelled the
promotion. The respondent challenged the cancellation of promotion by
filing Original Application No. 275 of 1994 in the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on
March 12th 1996, allowed the petition and directed the Authorities to
reconsider the case of the respondent.
• The SC held that though the respondent is allowed to continue on the post
of Senior Accountant (Functional) till he reaches the age of retirement i.e.
December 31st, 2007 and salary paid to him in that capacity will not be
recovered, his retiral benefits will be fixed not as Senior Accountant
(Functional) but as Accountant.
3) Right to know evidence against him
 Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT(AIR 1955 SC 65)
• The appellant is a public limited joint stock company incorporated under the
Indian Companies Act, 1915, with its registered office at Calcutta. It carries
on the business of manufacture and sale of cotton yarn and piece-goods. On
the 28th July, 1944, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice to it under section
22(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act calling upon it to file the return of its
income for the assessment year 1944-45 (account year being 1943-44).
• Before the expiry of the due date for filing the return the account books of
the appellant company together with the documents relevant to the
accounts, were taken into custody by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Narayanganj
and it is alleged that these remained in the custody of the court of the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate till January, 1950, when they were handed back to the
appellant.
• In this situation the assessee pleaded for extension of time to furnish the
return. This request was refused, and a show cause notice was issued under
section 28(3) of the Act calling upon the appellant company why penalty
should not be imposed upon it for its failure to file the return.
 Natural Justice
• The SC held that the assesse was not given a fair hearing.
However, the supply of adverse material, unless the law
otherwise provides, in original form is not necessary. It is
sufficient if the summary of the contents of material is
supplied, provided it is not misleading.
• A person may be allowed to inspect the file and take notes.
Whatever mode is used, the fundamental remains the same
that nothing should be used against the person which has not
been brought to his notice.
4) Right to present case and evidence/oral hearing
 R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad v. Settlement Commission
(IT&WT) (AIR 1989 SC 1038)
• The appellant made a composite application under section 245C of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 for settlement of his assessments for the
assessment years 1948-49 to 1975-76. The Commissioner objected to the
proposals under S. 336 and S. 245D(1) for settlement for the years 1948-
49 to 1959-60, but agreed to the settlement for the later years. The
Commission accordingly made an order an 24th August, 1977 rejecting
the application for settlement for the years 1948-49 to 1959-60.
• The appellant thereupon applied to the Commission to recall its order
since the same had been made without furnishing him any opportunity
of hearing. That application was pending. When sub-section (IA) was
inserted to section 245D, the appellant applied to the Commission to
permit him to contest the objections of the Commissioner contending
that these should be dealt with in accordance with the amended
provisions of section 245D(IA).
• On 7th August, 1987 the Settlement Commission accepted the first part
of the contentions holding that the applicant was entitled to a re-
hearing since its order of 24th August, 1977 had been made in violation of
the principles of natural justice and also express provision of section
245D(1) proviso, but rejected the second part of the submission on the
view that the application for settlement would have to be disposed of in
accordance with law which prevailed on24th August,1977. It further held
that since the Commissioner had objected only to some of the years
under settlement the entire application would have to be rejected.

• The SC held that mere opportunities to make submission is not enough

but clear opportunity must be given to demonstrate that the reporting
authority wasn’t justified in making objections.
 Natural Justice

5) Right to rebut adverse evidence

i. Right to cross examination

ii. Right to legal representation
i. Right to cross examination
 Hira Nath Misra v. Principal, Rajendra Medical College(AIR
1973 SC 1260)
• This is an appeal by special leave by three students of Rajendra Medical College,
Ranchi from an order of the Patna High Court dated November 21, 1972 dismissing
a Writ Petition filed by them for quashing the Order dated 24-6-1972 passed by
the Principal of that College expelling them from the college for two academic
sessions i.e. 1972-73 and 1973-74.
• The appellants were Second Year students of the college and lived in a Hostel
attached to the college. There was another Hostel for girl students. On the night
between 10th and 11th June, 1972 some male students of the college were found
sitting on the compound wall of the girls Hostel.
• Later they entered into the compound and were seen walking without clothes of
them. They went near the windows of the rooms of some of the girls and tried to
pull the hand of one of the girls. Some five of these boys then climbed up along
the drain pipes to the terrace of the girls Hostel where a few girls were doing their
studies. On seeing them the girls raised an alarm following which the students ran
away. The girls recognized four out of five these male students-three of them being
the present appellants and the fourth being one Upendra Prasad Singh.
• The SC disallowed the opportunity of cross-examination on the grounds of
practicability. The Court rejected the contention of the appellants that
they were not allowed to cross-examine the girl students on the ground
that if it was allowed no girl would come forward to give evidence, and
further that it would not be possible for the college authorities to
protect the girl students outside the college precincts.

• Where, however, witnesses depose orally before the authority, the refusal
to allow cross-examination would certainly amount to violation of
principles of natural justice.

• The right to cross-examine is an important part of the principle of fair

hearing but whether the same should be allowed in administrative
matters mainly depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.
 Natural Justice

ii. Right to legal representation

• Whether legal representation is allowed in administrative

proceedings depends on the provisions of the statute. Factory
laws do not permit legal representation, Industrial Disputes
Act allows it with the permission of the tribunal and some
statutes like Income Tax permit representation as a matter of
right.
 Natural Justice
• The courts in India have held that in following situations,
some professional assistance must be given to the party to
make his right to defend himself meaningful: -

a) Illiterate
b) Matter is technical or complicated
c) Expert evidence is on record
d) Question of law is involved
 Board of Trustees, Port of Bombay v. Dilip Kumar (AIR 1983
SC 109)
• In this case, in a charge sheet issued against the delinquent employee
(respondent) for the misconduct alleged against him the management
appointed its legal officer and his assistant as presenting officers. At the
same time it rejected the employee's request to engage a legal
practitioner for his defence.
• Meanwhile, as the enquiry was in progress, a Regulation 12(8) of
Bombay Port Trust Employees Regulations 1976, came into force enabling
a delinquent employee to engage a legal practitioner if the presenting
officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner.

• Even after the regulation came into force neither the enquiry officer nor
the disciplinary authority reviewed the earlier decision rejecting the
delinquent's request to be represented by a legal practitioner. At the
end of the enquiry the respondent was dismissed from service.
• The High Court set aside the order of dismissal on grounds of violation
of principles of natural justice.

• On the question whether, where in a domestic enquiry the employer

appoints a legally trained person as presenting-cum-prosecuting officer
the enquiry would be vitiated for violation of principles of natural
justice if the employer rejected the delinquent's request for permission
to defend him by a legal practitioner?

• Dismissing the appeal the SC held that since the delinquent employee
had not been afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself the
enquiry is vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice.
 Natural Justice

6) No evidence should be taken at the back of other party

 Hira Nath Misra v. Principal, Rajendra Medical College(AIR 1973 SC
1260)
• In this case the order of expulsion was challenged before the SC, and one
of the grounds of challenging was that the evidence was taken behind
their backs.
• The SC rejected the contention holding that the girls would not have
ventured to make the statements in the presence of the appellants except
at a great risk of retaliation and harassment.
• In this case, whatever evidence was collected behind backs of the
appellants was brought to their notice and they were provided with an
opportunity to rebut the evidence. Every case has to be decided on its
own merits.
 Natural Justice

7) Report of the enquiry to be shown to the other

party
 Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. UOI (AIR 1973 SC 389)

• Appellant Co. after doing business for 30 years closed down, due to this
1200 employees became unemployed. On the basis of commission of
enquiry into the affairs of the Co. u/s 15 of Industries (Development and
Regulation) Act,1951, in 1970 GOI passed an order u/s 18-A to take over
the Mill by the Gujarat Textile Corporation for a period of five years, which
was challenged before the SC on the ground that enquiry report was not
submitted.
 Natural Justice

 The SC Held that –

a) its not possible to lay down general principle on this
question.
b) answer depends on facts and circumstances of each case.
c) if the non-disclosure of the report causes any prejudice in any
manner to the party, it must be disclosed, otherwise non-
disclosure would not amount to violation of principles of
natural justice.
 Natural Justice

8) Reasoned decisions/speaking orders

• A speaking order means an order speaking for itself. Every order must
contain reasons in support of it. Giving reasons in support of an order is
considered tot be the third principle of natural justice. Thus, a party has a
right to know not only the result of the enquiry but also the reasons in
support of the decision.
 Natural Justice

• In India, unless there is specific requirement of giving reasons

under the statute, it is not mandatory for the administrative
agencies to give reasons for their decisions.

• Reasons are the link between the order and mind of the
maker. Any decision of the administrative authority affecting
the rights of the people without assigning any reason
tantamount to violation of principles of natural justice.
 Natural Justice
 The requirement of stating the reasons cannot be under emphasized as
its serves the following purpose: -

1) It ensures that the administrative authority will apply its mind and objectively look
at the facts and evidence of the case.
2) It ensures that all the relevant factors have been considered and that the
irrelevant factors have been left out.
3) It satisfies the aggrieved party in the sense that his view points have been
examined and considered prior to reaching a conclusion.
4) The appellate authorities and courts are in a better position to consider the
appeals on the question of law.

• However, mere recording of reasons serves no purpose unless the same are
communicated either orally or in writing to the parties. In fact mere
communication of reasons has no meaning unless the corrective machinery is in
place.
 Natural Justice

 Tara Chand Khatri v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (AIR

1977 SC 567)

• In this case, an assistant school teacher under the Delhi Municipal

Corporation, was dismissed on the ground of moral turpitude under the
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The enquiry committee fully
established the charge. The Asst. Education Commissioner confirmed the
report with out giving reasons. The SC held that where the disciplinary
authority disagrees with the report of the enquiry officer, it must state the
reasons.
 Natural Justice

9) Institutional decision or who decides must hear

 GP Nagswar Rao v. APSRTC (AIR 1959 SC 136)
 Natural Justice
10. Rule against dictation
 Orient Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. UOI( AIR 1970 SC 1498)
• In this case up to February, 1961 certain "printing and writing paper" and
“packing and wrapping paper" produced by the appellant Company
were subject to exercise duty at the rate of 22 nP. per kilogram though
the former was chargeable, under Item17(3) and the latter under Item
17(4) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

• The Finance Act of 1961 raised the, excise duty payable under Item 17(4)
to 35nP. per kilogram with effect from March 11 1968 and though for
some months the Excise Officer continued to levy duty on certain
"machine glazed paper" popularly known as "M.G. Poster paper" under
Item 17(3) i.e. by regarding it as“ printing and writing paper",
subsequently the excise authorities began to treat this paper as "packing
and wrapping paper "and insisted on the appellant paying duty thereon
under Item 17(4).
• The appellant paid the duty at the rate claimed under protest and
thereafter applied for refund of the excess on the ground that the duty on
that paper should have been levied under Item 17(3). The Assistant
Collector rejected the claim. An appeal to the Collector and a revision
to the Central Government were also rejected.
• It was clear from the order of the Collector as well as from the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the Government that the appeal and the
revision were rejected on the ground that the question was covered by a
direction issued by the Central Board of Revenue to the effect that the
paper in question was to be treated as packing and wrapping paper.

• The SC quashed the order of the Dy. Superintendent levying excise duty on
the directions of the Collector.
 Natural Justice

11. Financial incapacity to attend the enquiry

 Mumtaz Hussain Ansari v. State of U.P. (AIR 1984 SC 1116)
 The appellant was employed as a Deputy Superintendent of
Police (DSP) at Pilibhit, Lucknow, UP and appellant was guilty of
three of the four charges framed against him. Based on these
charges the Tribunal and HC upheld the dismissal order of the Govt.
 The SC held ruled that if the applicant was under suspension for a
long time and, hence, couldn’t deposit the initial amount Rs.900
due to his financial incapacity, the failure not to summon to defence
witnesses at the Government’s expense was a violation of the PNJ,
unless it was decided by the authority that the evidence of such
witnesses was not material.
 Natural Justice
12. Decision post-haste( Administrative authority must not run rush
decisions)
 City Corner v. Collector (AIR 1976 SC 143)
• In this case on 10th October, 1974, the appellant was granted a licence for conducting
games of skill and dances and other quality performances under the A.P. Places of Public
Resort Act, 1888. Objections having been raised, the Additional District Magistrate issued
a show cause notice to the appellant. In reply the appellant had asked for copies of
certain documents on the basis of which the show cause notice had been issued.
• In the meantime, however the appellant submitted a tentative explanation stating that a
detailed explanation would be sent after the receipt of the copies of the documents.
Immediately thereafter the District Magistrate cancelled the licence on 28th January, 1975
on the ground that the explanation offered was a routine one and was not convincing.
• The SC held that the order passed post-haste without supplying copies of adverse
material, or intimating that the summary of documents already supplied was sufficient,
offends the PNJ.
 Natural Justice

 Post - decisional hearing

• The idea of post - decisional hearing has been developed to

maintain a balance between administrative efficiency and
fairness to the individual.
 Natural Justice
 Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India (AIR 1981 SC 818)
 The SC validated the order of the Govt. for taking over the management of
the company which had been passed in violation of the ‘audi alteram
partem’ rule and which was found to have been attracted by necessary
implication because the Govt. had agreed to post-decisional hearing.

 The ratio of the majority decision was as follows: -

1) Pre-decisional hearing may be dispensed with in an emergent situation
where immediate action is required to prevent some imminent danger
or injury or hazard to paramount public interest.
2) Mere urgency is, however, no reason for exclusion of ‘audi alteram
partem’ rule. The decision to exclude pre-decisional hearing would be
justiciable.
3) Where pre-decisional hearing is dispensed with, there must be a
provision for post-decisional remedial hearing.
 Natural Justice

 K.I. Shephard & Ors v. Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 431)

• The Hindustan Commercial Bank, the Bank of Cochin Ltd. and Lakshmi
Commercial Bank were amalgamated with Punjab National Bank,
Canara Bank, State Bank of India respectively in terms of separate
schemes drawn under Sec. 45 of the Banking Regulation Act,1949, and
pursuant thereto 125 employees of these banks were excluded from
employment, and their services were not taken over by the respective
transferee banks. Some of these excluded employees filed writ
petitions before the High Court which granted partial relief, but on
appeal by the transferee Bank the Writ Petitions were dismissed by
the Division Bench.
 The SC held that rules of natural justice apply to administrative action
and the decision to exclude a section of employees without complying
with requirements of natural justice was bad.
 Natural Justice
 Doctrine of Legitimate expectation
 Meaning:
• A person may have a LE of being treated in a certain way by an
administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law
to receive such treatment.
• Prof. Wade: “LE means a reasonable expectation, can equally well be
involved in any situations where fairness and good administration justify
the right to be heard.”
• This doctrine has been developed both in the context of reasonableness
and in the context of natural justice.
1. Legitimate expectation and natural justice
• Fair procedure and just treatment are the core of our jurisprudence. Hence, where
the Govt. or an instrumentality of State declares a policy, or holds out a promise,
or makes a statement, or adopts a particular code, the DLE operates.
 Natural Justice
2. LE and unreasonableness
 In administrative affairs of the country, the Govt. and its instrumentalities
are expected to honour policy statements without unfair discrimination to
persons similarly situated. (Art.14)
3. LE and Public Policy
 It is open to the Govt. to frame and reframe its policy. If the policy is
changed and the court does not find it arbitrary, unreasonableness or
otherwise objectionable, the DLE does not make a decision of the Govt.
vulnerable.
4. LE and Estoppel
 The element of acting to applicant’s detriment which is a sine qua non (an
essential condition) for invoking estoppel is not a necessary ingredient of
legitimate expectation.
 Natural Justice
5. When it arises
a. if there is express promise held out or representation made by a public
authority; or
b. because of the existence of past practice which the claimant can
reasonably expect to continue; and
c. such promise or representation is clear and unambiguous
6. Duty of applicant
 LE affords the applicant standing to apply for the judicial review. A person
who bases his claim on the DLE in the first instance, must prove that there
is a foundation for such claim.
7. Duty of authority
 Where the applicant prima facie satisfies the court that his claim on the
basis of LE is well founded, it is for the authority to justify the action taken
against the application.
 Natural Justice

8. Duty of court
• When a case of LE is made out by the applicant, the court will consider the
prayer of the applicant for grant of relief.

9. Scope of judicial review

• To qualify as a subject of judicial review, the decision impugned must have
consequences which affect a person or body of persons by depriving him
of some benefit or advantage which affects a person or body of persons by
depriving him of some benefit or advantage.
 Natural Justice
 Case laws on Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation
1) Schmidt & Anr. v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs (1969)
1 All ER 904)
• Two US students brought an action in the courts against the Home
Secretary, U.K. They contended that they were permitted to come into
this country in order to study at the College of Scientology. Their
permits were for a limited time. The time has expired. They wished to
complete their studies and asked the Home Secretary to extend their
permits but he refused. They argued that his refusal was invalid,
because he did it for an unauthorised purpose, and also because he
did not act fairly towards them.
• The Court observed that a foreigner who had been given leave to enter
the United Kingdom, had the right to be heard and had a legitimate
expectation of being allowed to stay for the allowed time.
 Natural Justice
2) Attorney-General for Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen Shiu ((1983)
2 A.C. 629)
• A group of illegal immigrants of Chinese origin from Macau were told that
each of them would be interviewed in due course, and that each case
would be treated on its merits. Three days later, a deportation order was
made against the claimant. He challenged it on the basis that he had a
legitimate expectation of being heard before a decision was taken.
• The Court had observed that if a public authority has vowed to follow a
procedure, it is imperative that it acts in a fair manner and fulfills its
promise, in the interest of good administration.
• The Court distinguishes expectation from anticipation and states that an
expectation can only be said to be legitimate only if it has a legal
sanctioning or is backed by a procedure or custom that has been followed
consistently.
 Natural Justice
3) State of Kerala v. K.G. Madhavan Pillai ((1988) 4
SCC 669)
• The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation was firstly discussed in
the Indian arena in this case wherein a sanction was issued
under Kerala Education Act, 1957, for the respondents to open a
new aided school and to upgrade the existing schools, however,
an Order was issued 15 days later to keep the previous sanction
in abeyance. This Order was challenged by the respondents in
lieu of violation of principles of natural justice.
• The Supreme Court ruled that the sanction had entitled the
respondents with legitimate expectation and the second order
violated principles of natural justice.
 Natural Justice
4) Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union of
India ((1992) 4 SCC 477)
• In this case a new criteria for allotment of land was
challenged. In the original policy, the seniority with regards to
allotment of land was decided on the basis of date of
registration. Subsequently, a change in policy was made in
1990, changing the criteria for deciding seniority based on the
date of approval of the final list.
 Natural Justice
• The Supreme Court held that the Housing Societies were entitled to
‘legitimate expectation’ owing to the continuous and consistent practice in
the past in matters of allotment. Court further elucidates on the principle
stating that presence of ‘legitimate expectations’ can have different
outcomes and one such outcome is that the authority should not fail
‘legitimate expectation’ unless there is some justifiable public policy
reason for the same.

• It is further emphasized that availability of reasonable opportunity to

those likely being affected by the change in a policy which was consistent
in nature is well within the ambit of acting fairly. The Court further held
that such an opportunity should have been given to the Housing Societies
by way of a public notice.
 Natural Justice
5) Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed
Industries (1993) 1 SCC 71)
• The appellant-Corporation invited tenders for sale of stocks of damaged food-grains.
The respondent's bid was the highest. Since the appellant was not satisfied about the
adequacy of the amount offered even in the highest tender, it invited all the tenders
to participate in the negotiations, instead of accepting the highest tender.

• During the course of negotiations, the respondent refused to revise the rates in its
offer. On the basis of the highest bid made during the negotiations, the appellant
disposed of the stocks of damaged food grains, rejecting the highest tenders. The
respondent, whose tender was the highest, challenged the decision of the appellants
by filing a Writ Petition before the High Court.

• It was contended that the action of the appellant was arbitrary and hence violative of
Art. 14 of the Constitution. The High Court accepted the contention and allowed the
Writ Petition. Being aggrieved by the High Court's decision the appellant-
Corporation preferred the present appeal.
• It was contended on behalf of the appellant that there being
no right in the person submitting the highest tender to claim
acceptance thereof, and since all tenderers were given equal
opportunity to participate in the negotiations and to revise
the bid before acceptance, the action of the appellant was
not arbitrary.
• The respondent contended that since no cogent reasons were
indicated for rejecting all the tenders and for deciding to
dispose of the stock by negotiating with the tenderers for
procuring a higher price, such a decision was arbitrary.
• The Supreme Court held that the nature of the doctrine of legitimate
expectations that the duty to act fairly on part of public authorities,
entitles every citizen to have legitimate expectation to be treated in a fair
manner and it is imperative to give due importance to such an expectation
in order to satisfy the requirement of non-arbitrariness in state action or
otherwise it may amount to abuse of power.

• The Court further made a remarkable point that such a reasonable or

legitimate expectation may not be a directly enforceable legal right but
failure in taking it into account may deem a decision arbitrary. To decide
whether an expectation is a legitimate one is contextual and has to be
decided on a case by case basis.
 Natural Justice
 Limitations of Legitimate expectations
1. The concept of LE is only procedural and has no substantive
impact
 AG for New South Wales v. Quinn(1990) 64 Aus. LJR 327

• Quinn was a stipendiary Magistrate in charge of Court of Petty Session. By an Act of

Legislature that court was replaced by Local Court. Though applied, Quinn was not
appointed under the new system. The action was challenged.
• The High Court of Australia found in favour of the Attorney-General, ruling that Courts
were not able to overrule government policy as the appointment of magistrates is a role of
the executive.
• Brennan J held that "Judicial review provides no remedies to protect interests, falling short
of enforceable rights, which are apt to be affected by the lawful exercise of executive or
administrative power" and that "Judicial review has undoubtedly been invoked ... to set
aside administrative acts and decisions which are unjust or otherwise inappropriate, but
only to the extent the purported exercise of power is excessive and or otherwise unlawful.”

• The Court dismissed the claim observing that if substantive protection is to be accorded to
legitimate expectations, it would result in interference with administrative decisions on
 Natural Justice
2. The doctrine does not apply to legislative activities
 Srinivasa Theatre v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu(AIR 1992 SC 999)

• The Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act, 1939 provides for levy of
entertainment tax on admission to cinema theatres in the State of Tamil
Nadu. Until 1978 the entertainment tax was levied on the basis of
'admission system' i.e. on the actual number of tickets sold.
• In 1978 the Act was amended and section 5(A) and 5(B) were introduced.
These sections introduced the ‘composition system' of collection of
entertainment tax under which tax was levied based upon the gross
collection capacity of cinema theatres irrespective of the actual
number of tickets sold.
 Natural Justice
• In 1989 the Act was further amended and Sub-section (1) of Section 5(A) of
the Act was substituted. By this amendment, the percentage of
entertainment tax via-a-vis the rates of admission in force in corporation
and special grade municipality areas was reduced from 53% to 40%.

• At the same time all the theatres situated within the radius of five
kilometers from the peripheral limits of such areas (belt) which were
hitherto governed by the composition system were brought over to the
admission system. However, the temporary and open air theatres even
though located in the belt of five kilometers were excluded from this switch-
over.
 Natural Justice

• The validity of the amendment was challenged inter alia on

the ground that it was against legitimate expectation of the
law in force prior to amendment.

• The SC rejected the argument and held that a legislation

cannot be invalidated on the basis that it offends the
legitimate expectations of the persons affected thereby.
 Natural Justice
3. Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation does not apply if it is contrary to public
policy or against the security of the State
 Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service(1984) 3
All ER 935
• The Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) is a British intelligence agency that
provides signals intelligence to the British government and armed forces. Prior to 1983, its
existence was not acknowledged although it openly recruited graduates. After a spy scandal in
1983, the organization became known to the public, and Margaret Thatcher's government
decided a year later that employees would not be allowed to join a trade union for reasons
of national security. The Minister for the Civil Service is a position held ex officio by the Prime
Minister.
• That was done through an Order in Council, an exercise of the royal prerogative. Despite an
extensive publicity campaign by trade unions, the government refused to reverse its decision
but instead offered affected employees the choice between £1,000 and the membership of a
staff association or dismissal. Employees dismissed could not rely on an industrial tribunal
since they were not covered by the relevant employment legislation. As such, the Council of
Civil Service Unions decided that judicial review was the only available route.
• The decision to ban workers at GCHQ from trade union membership had been taken after the
meeting of a select group of ministers and the prime minister, rather than the full Cabinet.
• In the High Court, Glidewell J held that the employees of GCHQ had a right
to consultation, and that the lack of consultation made the decision
invalid.
• In the Court of Appeal, Lord Lane CJ, Watkins LJ and May LJ held that
judicial review could not be used to challenge the use of the royal
prerogative. They decided that as the determination of national security
issues is an executive function, it would be inappropriate for the courts to
intervene.
• The House of Lords held, the royal prerogative was subject to judicial
review, just like statutory instruments. However, on national security
grounds, the action of restricting the trade union was justified. Lords
Fraser, Scarman and Diplock all believed that the issue of national security
was outside the remit of the courts.
 Exceptions to the Rules of Natural Justice:
1. Emergency
 Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India (AIR 1981 SC 818)
• The appellant M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills was taken over by the
Government of India by a notification dated April 13, 1978 in exercise of
the powers conferred on it under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section
18AA of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 on the
ground that the company had by creation of encumbrances on the assets
of its industrial undertakings, brought about a situation which had
affected and is likely to further affect the production of articles
manufactured or produced by it and that immediate action is necessary
to prevent such a situation.
• The Government authorized the National Textile Corporation Limited
to take over the management, subject to the conditions that the
authorized person shall comply with all the directions issued from time to
time by the Central Government and that the authorized person shall hold
office for a period of five years.
• The appellant Mills challenged the aforesaid order in a writ
petition in the High Court which dismissed the appeal.

• The SC held that the word ‘immediate’ in Sec. 18-AA(1) of the

Industries(Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 cannot
stand in the way of the application of rules of NJ and the case
is remitted to the Central Government to give a full, fair and
effective hearing.
2) Confidentiality
 Malak Singh v. State of Punjab and Haryana (AIR 1981 SC 760)
• The Appellants claimed that they were law-abiding citizens of Amritsar, but
due to political enmity with a Congress MLA, they had been falsely implicated
in some criminal cases. Their names were entered in a surveillance register
with a police station in Amritsar, following which they would be harassed
frequently by being called to the police station or being involved in
investigations without cause.

• This petition originated from an appeal preferred against the judgment of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which dismissed the writ petitions filed by
the appellants, Malak Singh and Jaswant Singh who were seeking the removal
of their names from the surveillance register maintained with the police.

• The surveillance register was maintained in accordance with Rule 23.4 of the
Rules. Rule 23.7 further prescribed that police surveillance would comprise of
“close watch over the movements of the person under surveillance, by Police
Officers, Village headmen and village watchmen as may be applicable without
any illegal interference.”
 Natural Justice
 Issues
1. Whether a person was entitled to be given an opportunity to show cause
before his name was included in the surveillance register? and
2. Whether there existed a reasonable ground for the Appellants to be
included in the surveillance register?

• The SC held that the maintenance of Surveillance Register by the Police is

confidential document neither the person whose name is entered in the
Register nor the any other member of the public can have excess to it.
• Furthermore, the Court observed that observance of the principles of
Natural justice in such a situation may defeat the very purpose of
surveillance and there is every possibility of the end of justice being
defeated instead of being served.
 Natural Justice
3. Purely administrative matters
 Karnataka Public Service Commission v. B.M. Vijaya Shanker
(1992)2 SCC 480)
• The Karnataka Public Service Commission conducted competitive
examinations for the State Civil Services. Clause (I) of the General
Instructions to the candidates provided that the candidates should write
their roll number only on the front page of the answer books in the
space provided for it and not anywhere else inside the answer sheet.
• Clause (xii) provided that the candidates must abide by the instructions
and clause (xiii) provided that failure to abide by the instructions will
render them liable to expulsion from examination or such other
punishment as the Commission may deem fit.
• Some of the candidates violated the instructions and entered
their roll numbers inside the answer books. Consequently
their answer books were not got evaluated by the
Commission. The candidates challenged the action of the
Commission before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal
which directed the Commission to get their answer books
evaluated by holding that -
i. no penalty was provided for breach of the instructions and
ii. the failure of the Commission to afford any opportunity to
the candidates to explain their bonafide and innocence was
arbitrary.
• Against the decision of the Tribunal the Commission and
the State filed appeals in the SC.
 Natural Justice
• The SC held that rule of hearing has been construed strictly in
academic disciplines. It should be construed more strictly in
such cases where an examinee is competing for Civil Service
post.

• Present case can safely be placed in a category where

natural justice before taking any action stood excluded as
it did not involve any misconduct or punishment. Therefore
the Tribunal in issuing the directions approached the matter
technically and completely misdirected itself in this regard.
4. Impracticability
 R. Radhakrishnan v. Osmania University ( AIR 1974 SC 283)

• The MBA Degree course of the Osmania University is apparently much sought
after. In 1973, there were a large number of applicants for a few seats. The
University decided to hold an entrance test. The entrance test was held on
29-7-1973. The result of the test was announced on 10-8-1973. The
petitioners in W. P. Nos 4837, 6560 and 6687 of 1973 were among the thirty
who were selected for admission. But it was discovered that there was mass
copying at the test. The University, therefore, on 20-8-1973 cancelled the test
held on 29-7-73 and announced that another test would be held on 11-11-
1973.

• The petitioners in W. P. Nos. 6560 and 6687 of 1973 filed the writ petitions
objecting to the decision to hold a fresh test. The principal argument
addressed on their behalf was that there was violation of the principles of
natural justice as they were not given any opportunity to explain why the test
held on 29-7-1973 at which they had come out successful should not be
cancelled.
 Natural Justice
• It was argued that the cancellation of the test case an aspersion(an attack
on the reputation or integrity of someone or something) on the
petitioners and therefore it was the duty of the University to give them on
opportunity of explanation before cancelling the test.
• The SC held that it was not necessary for the Board to give an opportunity
to the candidates if the examinations as a whole were being cancelled.
The Board had not charged any one with unfair means so that he could
claim to defend himself.
• The examination was vitiated by adoption of unfair means on a mass scale.
In these circumstances it would be wrong to insist that the Board must
hold a detailed inquiry into the matter and examine each individual case
to satisfy itself which of the candidates case to satisfy which of the
candidates had not adopted unfair means. The examination as a whole
had to go."
 Natural Justice
5. Interim preventive action
• If the action of the administrative authority is a suspension order in the nature of a
preventive action and not a final order, the application of the PNJ may be excluded.
 Abhay Kumar v. K. Srinivasan ( AIR 1981 Del 381)
• Petitioner was suspended from the rolls of the three-year Diploma Course in Pusa Polytechnic
Institute, by the order of the Principal on 16'-10-80. By the me order, he was prohibited from
entering the premises of the Polytechnic. He was also directed to vacate the hostel room
occupied by him. This was a temporary order. It was to be in force till the criminal case
against him was decided.
• In this Writ Petition., the petitioner has challenged this order. The petitioner (along with two
other students), was involved in a stabbing incident in the Polytechnic on 15-11-1979. One
Ved parkash Pippal, a student of first year was stabbed. A criminal case u/s 307 IPC. is
pending against these students. The Disciplinary Committee of the Institute, after due
enquiry, had recommended expulsion of these students but the Principal did not impose the
extreme penalty.
• The Director of Technical Education, Delhi Administration, has framed
rules regarding conduct, discipline and punishment of the students. Rule-3
lays down what are called the "Forbidden Practices".

 The relevant portion reads :

• "No student shall indulge in any of the following practices, namely.
(a) .................................... (e) Rowdyism and rude benaviour. (f) Use of
violence in any form, (g) Offence of cognizable nature ...-.. (i) Any other
conduct unbecoming of a student of institution."
 The order of the Principal is challenged on the following grounds :
1) No show-cause notice of the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee
was served on the petitioner. He could not, therefore, participate in the
proceedings. This was against the principles of natural justice;
2) The action was in contravention of the petitioner's fundamental right
under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Right to take education is a
fundamental right;
3) The order was contrary to social justice;
4) The order was mala fide. The Principal has acted in collusion with Ved
Parkash Pippal, the victim of stabbing.

• The Delhi High Court rejecting the contention held that such an order
could be compared with an order of suspension pending enquiry which is
preventive in nature in order to maintain campus peace hence the
principles of natural justice shall not apply.
6. Legislative action
• Legislative action, plenary or subordinate, is not subject to the
rules of NJ because these rules lay down a policy without
reference to a particular individual.
 Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd. & Anr. (AIR 1987SC 1802)
• Paragraph 3 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1979 made by
the Central Government in exercise of powers under s. 3(2)(c) of
the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 empowers the
Government, after making such enquiry as it deems fit, to fix the
maximum price at which the indigenously manufactured bulk
drug shall be sold.
• Clause (2) of Paragraph 3 provides that while so fixing the price of
a bulk drug, the Government may take into account the average
cost of production of such bulk drug manufactured by a efficient
manufacturer and allow a reasonable return on net worth.
• The Central Government issued notifications under paragraph 3 of the
1979 Order fixing the maximum prices at which various indigenously
manufactured bulk drugs could be sold. The manufacturers first filed
review applications under paragraph 27 of the Order and thereafter writ
petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the notifications.
• The High Court quashed those notifications on the ground of failure to
observe the principles of natural justice. Since prices of formulations are
primarily dependent on prices of bulk drugs, the notifications fixing the
retail prices of formulations issued during the pendency of review
petitions were also quashed.
• The SC held that no principles of Natural Justice had been violated when
the Government issued a notification fixing the Prices of certain drugs. The
Court reasoned that since the notification showed from a legislative act
and not an administrative one so Principles of Natural Justice would not
applied.
7. No infringement of rights of persons
• Where no right has been conferred on a person by any statute nor any
such right arises from common law the PNJ are not applicable.
 Andhra Steel Corporation v. A.P. State Electricity Board(AIR
1991 SC 1456)
• The appellants owning mini steel plants have been getting supply of
electricity from the Respondent-Board. The Board revised its terms and
conditions for supply of electricity, and concessional tariff of 11 paise per
unit for 3 years from 1.11.1977 was applied to five steel plants. This
tariff was subsequently enhanced to 12.5 paise per unit.
• However, the concessional tariff was not extended to one of the
appellants viz. M/s. Andhra Steel Corporation since a Writ Petition had
been filed by it claiming that the agreement entered into with
the Respondent-Board for availing high tension electric supply was no
longer in force. In respect of the other steel plants, the Bard extended
the concessional tariff subject to escalations and other terms and
conditions and fixed a certain minimum consumption.
• However, the tariff was revised to 16 paise without reference to the
maximum demand charges from 1.3.1978. In reply to a clarification
sought by the Respondent-Board, the State Government clarified that the
Government order did not preclude the Board from applying the normal
terms and conditions of supply and prescribing the monthly minimum
charges and the working out of the escalated rate from time to time.
• Subsequently the State Government withdrew the concessional tariff.
The State Government made a further clarification that its intention was
to allow the concessional tariff without limiting the concession by
imposition of minimum consumption charges till the end of March, 1979.
• Aggrieved by the withdrawal of the concessional tariff, the mini steel
plants filed Writ Petitions before the High Court which dismissed the
petition.
• The SC held that a concession can be withdrawn at any time without
affording any opportunity of hearing to affected persons except when the
law requires otherwise or the authority is bound by promissory estoppel.
 Natural Justice
8. Statutory exception or Necessity
• Disqualification on the ground of bias against a person will not be applicable if he
is the only person competent or authorised to decide that matter or take that
action.
 Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India ( AIR 1990) 1 SCC 613
• Following the Bhopal Gas Leak tragedy when over 3000 people were killed
by the leak of a highly toxic Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) gas from a storage
tank at the Bhopal plant of Union Carbide (India) Ltd., the Government of
India, acting as parens patriae, passed the Bhopal Gas Disaster (Processing
of Claims) Act, 1985 to take over and pursue the claims of the victims, as
they were unable in their circumstances to pursue their claims fully and
properly.
• The Petitioner challenged the validity of the Bhopal Gas Disaster (Proceedings of
Claims) Act, 1985 in the Supreme Court on the grounds that the Act is violative of
the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution:
• that the Act is violative of the Principles of Natural Justice mainly on the ground
that Union of India, being a joint tort-feasor, in that it has permitted establishment
of such factories with out necessary safeguards, has no locus standi to
compromise on behalf of the victims; that the victims and their legal heirs were
not given the opportunity of being heard, before the Act was passed; that in the
guise of giving aid, the State could not destroy the rights inherent in its citizens;
nor could it demand the citizens to surrender their rights to the State; that vesting
of the rights in Central Government was bad and unreasonable because there was
conflict of interest between the Central Government and the victims.
• Since the Central Government owned 22% share in UCIL, and that would make
the Central Government a Judge in its own cause.
• The Court observed that even if the argument was correct the doctrine of
necessity would be applicable to the situation because if the Govt. did not
represent the whole class of gas victims no other sovereign body could
represent and thus the PNJ were not attracted.
 Natural Justice
9. Contractual agreement
 State of Gujarat v. M.P. Shah Charitable Trust (1994)3 SCC
552
• Meghji Pethraj Shah Medical College was established by the then Government of
Saurashtra at Jamnagar in the year 1955. For establishing the college, Shri M.P.
Shah "donated" a sum of Rupees fifteen lakhs subject to certain
conditions(10%quota to donor). The government hospital then known as Irwin
Hospital was attached to the said college to meet the requirement of a hospital
with necessary bed-strength.
• In the year 1993, after the judgment in J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P; the
Government of Gujarat repudiated one of the conditions attached to the
donation, which led the M.P. Shah Charitable Trust to approach the Gujarat High
Court for issuance of a writ commanding the State of Gujarat to continue to
abide by the said condition. The writ petition was allowed by a learned Single
Judge and a Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat has been
dismissed by a Division Bench the correctness whereof is under challenge
herein.
• The SC held that the PNJ are not attracted in case of
termination of an agreement in any contractual field.
Termination of an agreement/arrangement is neither a quasi
judicial nor an administrative act, so that the duty to act
judicially is not attracted.
 Natural Justice
10. Policy decision
 BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India ( AIR 1994 SC 552)
• In this case the validity of the decision of the Union of India to disinvest
and transfer 51% shares of M/s Bharat Aluminium Company Limited
('BALCO') is the primary issue.The employees challenged the Govt.’s policy
decision regarding disinvestment in Public Sector Undertakings.
• The SC held that in taking of a policy decision in economic maters at
length, the PNJ have no role to play. The SC held that unless the policy
decision to disinvest is capricious, arbitrary, illegal or uninformed, and is
not contrary to law, the decision cannot be challenged on the ground of
violation of PNJ.
 Natural Justice
11. Useless formality
• Where on the admitted or undisputed facts only one
conclusion is possible and under the law only one possible
penalty is permissible, the Court may not insist on the
observance of the PNJ because it would be futile to order its
observance.
 D. Rai Bahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Edu’l
Institution v. Edu’ Appellate Tribunal(AIR 1999 SC 332)

• The appellant institution is a private educational institution conducting a junior

college. The respondent was appointed as a lecturer in Chemistry in the said
institution on 5th June, 1973. She applied for grant of leave for proceeding her
higher studies(As a fact she did not join M.Phil course but contrary to the condition
of leave, which was for M.Phil course, she got herself registered for Ph.D course)
which was granted subject to her giving a declaration that after expiry of the leave
if she fails to resume her duties, the authorities shall be entitled to terminate her
services.
• The case of the appellant is that though an extraordinary leave was granted for
specified course with certain conditions but respondent neither went for the
course for which she obtained the leave nor joined back her duties in spite of the
reminder and hence after due notice to respondent and after receipt of her reply
and after giving due consideration to it not finding it satisfactory, terminated her
services on 26th February, 1979 under S.608 of the Karnataka Private Educational
Institutions(Discipline & Control Act,1975.
• It is this order which was challenged before the said Tribunal in appeal in
which her termination order was set aside. Aggrieved by the same, the
appellant filed Civil Revision in the High Court. The High Court confirmed
the order of the Tribunal by holding neither any enquiry was held nor any
opportunity was provided to the respondent to establish that she had not
stayed away willfully. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal has been filed.
• The SC held that the order of termination was passed in the year 1978
which is more than 21 years back and on the facts and circumstances of
this case, as she is not working since then in the said institution and that
she is already in some job and in view of our findings above and the SC
uphold the order of termination dated 26th February, 1979 by applying
useless formality theory.
 Natural Justice
 EFFECTS OF BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL
JUSTICE
• Courts are unanimous that a decision rendered in violation of the rule
against bias is merely voidable and not void. Thus the aggrieved party may
waive his right to avoid the decision; as where timely objection is not
made even though there is full knowledge of the bias and the right to
object to it.

• H.W.R. Wade: “The breaches of the rules of NJ must have the effect of
producing void decisions.”

• D.M. Gordon: “Procedural breaches can never render a decision void as

jurisdictional error.” Thus decisions are also available on both sides.
 Natural Justice
• Where one of the members of the Selection Committee was
himself a candidate for selection, the PNJ were violated.
• Where author members were present in the committee
constituted for selection of books written by them, it was
violation of the rules of NJ.
• Where personal hearing is given by one officer and order is
passed by another officer, the order is impeachable o the
ground of violation of PNJ.
 Natural Justice
 Nawab Khan Abbas Khan v. State of Gujarat ( AIR
1974 SC 1471)
• The appellant was prosecuted under Sec. 142 of the Bombay Police Act,
1951 on contravention of an externment order issued under s. 56 of that
Act. During the pendency of the criminal trial, the High Court, in a petition
under Art. 226 of the Constitution, quashed the order of externment on
the ground that no opportunity to show cause was given against
allegations relating to areas where the acts were alleged to have been
committed.
• In criminal trial, the trial court acquitted the appellant. On appeal by the
State the High Court convicted the appellant. It held that the accused had
re-entered the forbidden area during the currency of the order. The High
Court was of the view that the quashing of the order by the court did
not render the order of externment void ab initio but it only invalidated
the order with effect from the date of the issue of the writ quashing the
order.
• On the question whether the externment order having
been quashed by the High Court during the pendency of
the criminal trial the order had become void ab initio and
there being no quit order there was no offence?

• The SC held that an order which infringes a fundamental

freedom passed in violation in violation of the ‘audi alteram
partem’ rule is completely void and of no value.
• The SC emphasised that externment order passed in violation
of PNJ is of no effect and its violation is no offence because
such determination is a jurisdictional error going to the very
roots of a determination.
 A.R. Antulay v. R.S.Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602)
• The appellant was the Chief Minister of the state of Maharashtra from
June 1980. On first September 1981, an individual from Bharatiya Janata
Party approached the Governor of the state under Section 197 of the
Criminal Procedure Code of, 1973 and Section 6 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947 for the approval to bring a suit against the appellant.
• The respondent also filed a complaint with the Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bombay contradicting that the appealing party and others for
offences under Section 161,165,384 and 420 read with Sections
109 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Prevention of
the Corruption Act.
• The Magistrate did not take any legal notification for the offences without
the assent for arraignment. Further, a revision was filed in the High Court
of Bombay.
• The allegations of abuse of power resulted in his resignation as chief
minister in 1982.
 Issues

1) Whether the directions are given by the court in breach of

Section 7(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment act of 1952?

2) Whether the decision is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the

Constitution?
• On sixteenth February 1984, an appeal was filed under Article
136 and the constitution bench (4:3)of the Supreme Court
held that a member of the legislative assembly is not
necessarily a public servant and revoked the previous order.
• He was subsequently allowed bail by the court. However, the
Supreme Court later got him free from the allegation.
• The SC held that, any action in violation of the PNJ is a nullity
and the trial “coram non judice.”(It is a legal term basically
used to indicate a proceeding which is legal in nature that is
outside the authority of a judge (without a judge), with
improper presence, or without legal jurisdiction).