9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an opportunity, that is, in the nature of a personal hearing before exercising discretion to waive a part or the whole of the penalty, reference has been made to a larger Bench. While in Amrutlal Ganpatram Panchal v. Union of India (C.W.P. No. 2890 of 1987), decided on September 25, 1987, it was observed that in the absence of any statutory requirement to that effect opportunity was not to be granted. In the present writ petition, the prima facie view of the learned judges hearing the matter was that the principles of natural justice require grant of such an opportunity. We may note that in Jesus Sales Corporation v. Union of India, AIR 1994 Delhi 218 [FB], the same issue was considered and it was held by a Full Bench that an opportunity has to be given before deciding an application of the third proviso to section 4M of the Act. It was the second proviso to section 4M of the Act at the relevant point of time, when the Full Bench took up the matter. The matter was carried to the apex court and in Union of India v. Jesus Sales Corporation [1996] 83 ELT 486 (SC), it was observed that it will be difficult to say that in every case denial of an opportunity would be violative of the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are well-settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as the audi alteram partem rule. It says that none should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed against the person in absentia becomes wholly vitiated. Thus it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial quasi judicial authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice. What is meant by the term "principles of natural justi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Board of Works [1884-85] 10 AC 229; 54 LJMC 81 (HL), where the learned and noble Lord Chancellor observed as follows: "No doubt, in the absence of special provisions as to how the person who is to decide is to proceed, the law will imply no more than that the substantial requirements of justice shall not be violated. He is not a judge in the proper sense of the word; but he must give the parties an opportunity of being heard before him and stating their case and their view. He must give notice when he will proceed with the matter, and he must act honestly and impartially and not under the dictation of some other person or persons to whom the authority is not given by law. There must be no malversation of any kind. There would be no decision within the meaning of the statute if there were anything of that sort done contrary to the essence of justice." Lord Selborne also added that the essence of justice consisted in requiring that all parties should have an opportunity, of submitting to the person by whose decision they are to be bound, such considerations as in their judgment ought to be brought before him. All these cases lay down the very important rule of natural justice con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fairly". In Fairmount Investments Ltd. v. Secretary of State for Environment [1976] 1 WLR 1255; [1976] 2 All ER 865 (HL), Lord Russell of Killowen somewhat picturesquely described natural justice as "a fair crack of the whip" while Geoffrey Lane, LJ. In Regina v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs [1977] 1 WLR 766 (CA) preferred the homely phrase "common fairness". How then have the principles of natural justice been interpreted in the courts and within what limits are they to be confined? Over the years by a process of judicial interpretation two rules have been evolved as representing the principles of natural justice in judicial process, including therein quasi judicial and administrative process. They constitute the basic elements of fair hearing, having their roots in the innate sense of man for fairplay and justice which is not the preserve of any particular race or country but is shared in common by all men. The first rule is nemo judex in causa sua' or nemo debet esse judex in propria causa sua' as stated in [1605] 12 Co. Rep. 114, that is, "no man shall be a judge in his own cause". Coke used the form "aliquis non debet esse judex in propria causa quia non potest esse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
