2016 (8) TMI 1544 - HC - Indian Laws

Scope of SCN - Direction by State Government for payment of a certain amount for alleged breach of conditions of the mining lease - allegation of certain illegal mining having been carried on - communication notice construed as not to be SCN as there was no opportunity of being heard - HELD THAT - Natural justice is an important concept in an administrative law. It is also known as substantial justice divine justice fundamental justice universal justice rational justice and fair play in action. The rules of natural justice have been summarised in one word i.e. fairness. Natural justice is a great humanising principle intended to invest law with fairness to secure justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice. In Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Assn. V. Designated Authority 2011 (1) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT the Apex Court held that the golden rule which stands firmly established is that the doctrine of natural justice is not only to secure justice but to prevent miscarriage of justice. Its essence is good conscience in a given situation; nothing more- but nothing less. It is well settled that where exercise of power results in civil consequences unless the statute specifically rules out the principle of natural justice would apply. Since the order dated 25.11.2010 was challenged on merits and records of the case were placed before the Revisional Authority there was nothing wrong on the part of the Revisional Authority to decide the same on merits and thereafter quash the proceeding after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the communication dated 25.11.2010 was a notice or an order.
2. Whether the principles of natural justice were adhered to in the issuance of the communication dated 25.11.2010.
3. Whether the Revisional Authority was justified in deciding the revision on merits and setting aside the impugned proceeding dated 25.11.2010.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of the Communication Dated 25.11.2010:
The primary contention by the petitioner-State of Odisha was that the communication dated 25.11.2010 was merely a notice to show cause and not an order. However, the court observed that the language and content of the communication indicated a final determination by the State Government, directing the opposite party no.2 to make a payment of ?11,31,72,22,440/- and remedy the breach of conditions within 60 days, failing which the mining lease would be determined, and the security deposit forfeited. The court concurred with the Revisional Authority’s view that the communication was indeed an order and not a show cause notice, thus making the revision maintainable under Section 30 of the Act 1957.

2. Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice:
The court highlighted the importance of natural justice in administrative law, emphasizing fairness and the prevention of miscarriage of justice. It was noted that the communication dated 25.11.2010 violated the principles of natural justice as it did not provide an opportunity for the opposite party no.2 to show cause before the determination of the amount payable. The court referenced several judgments, including A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, to underline that even in the absence of explicit statutory provisions, the principles of natural justice must be implied. Consequently, the communication was quashed for non-adherence to these principles.

3. Justification of the Revisional Authority’s Decision:
The petitioner argued that the Revisional Authority should have remanded the matter to the State Government for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity for the opposite party no.2 to show cause. However, the court observed that the Revisional Authority had considered all grounds on merits, reviewed necessary documents, and the records were undisputedly placed before it. The Revisional Authority’s decision to address the merits and quash the impugned proceeding was deemed appropriate. The court found no fault in the Revisional Authority setting aside the proceeding dated 25.11.2010, as it was within the scope of the prayers made in the revision petition.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, with the court upholding the Revisional Authority’s decision to quash the impugned proceeding dated 25.11.2010 for violation of natural justice principles. The court found that the communication dated 25.11.2010 was an order, not a notice, and that the Revisional Authority was justified in deciding the revision on merits. No order as to costs was made.