9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Municipal Commissioner's order dated October 13, 1969. 2. Compliance with principles of natural justice. 3. Nature of proceedings under Section 258 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. 4. Consequences of non-compliance with natural justice principles. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Municipal Commissioner's Order Dated October 13, 1969 The petition was directed against an order issued by the Municipal Commissioner of Baroda under Section 258 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. The order canceled the previously granted permission to erect a building, citing material misrepresentations and fraudulent statements by the petitioner. However, the order did not specify the alleged misrepresentations or fraudulent statements nor the material on which the decision was based. 2. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice The impugned order was challenged primarily on the grounds of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioners argued that they were not given a reasonable opportunity to represent their case before the order was passed. The Court held that the Municipal Commissioner failed to provide prior notice or particulars of the alleged misrepresentations or fraudulent statements, and did not afford the petitioners an opportunity to correct or controvert the charges against them. 3. Nature of Proceedings Under Section 258 of the Act The Court examined whether the proceedings under Section 258 were quasi-judicial or administrative. It concluded that the proceedings were quasi-judicial in nature. The decision rested on the fact that the Municipal Commissioner's power to cancel building permission affects an individual's rights and interests adversely. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Province of Bombay v. Kusaldas S. Advani, which provided tests to determine whether an act is administrative or quasi-judicial. 4. Consequences of Non-Compliance with Natural Justice Principles The Court emphasized that any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is void. The argument that the defect in the order could be cured by a subsequent hearing was rejected. The Court stated that an order made in breach of natural justice principles cannot be validated ex post facto by affording the affected person an opportunity to represent their case after the order is passed. The Court also rejected the argument that non-compliance with natural justice did not result in a miscarriage of justice, stating that the breach of natural justice itself constitutes a miscarriage of justice. Conclusion: The Court allowed the petition and quashed the Municipal Commissioner's order dated October 13, 1969, under Section 258 of the Act. The respondents were directed to pay the costs of the petition to the petitioners. The judgment underscores the necessity for administrative authorities to adhere to principles of natural justice, especially when their decisions have significant adverse effects on individuals' rights.
|
