S.L.Kapoor v. Jagmohan, AIR 1981 SC 136

S.L. KAPOOR V. JAGMOHAN

ISSUE:

Whether the New Delhi Municipal Committee was given adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations before the order of supersession was issued.
Whether the rules of natural justice should be followed even when there are undisputed facts that speak for themselves, since no purpose would be served by following the process of formal notice?

RULE:

The court emphasized that natural justice must be observed in administrative actions, particularly when significant allegations are made against a public body.
The principle of minimal natural justice was highlighted, indicating that even in urgent situations, a basic opportunity to respond should be afforded.
The court ruled that mere correspondence or reprimands do not constitute an adequate opportunity for representation if they do not indicate impending action against the committee.

FACTS:

The case involved Section 238(1) under Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 which is applicable to New Delhi Municipal Committee. Under the section, the Delhi Administration was empowered, by a notification to supersede a Municipal Committee if in its view, the Municipal Committee is incompetent to perform or persistently makes default in the performance of, the duties imposed by the Act or under any other Act, or exceeds or abuses its powers.
Exercising the powers under this section the Lt. Governor, Delhi, superseded the New Delhi Municipal Committee on the ground that it had made persistent default in the performance of the duties imposed on it under the law and had abused its powers resulting in wastage of municipal funds. Four grounds were enumerated in the order of supersession.
In their writ petition two non-official members of the superseded committee impugned the order of supersession contending that the order was passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and total disregard of fair-play.
The Full Bench of the High Court dismissing the writ petition held that although the Committee should have been given an opportunity to state its case, since the Committee was aware of the allegations in 3 out of 4 grounds, mere failure to observe principles of natural justice did not vitiate the order.

HELD:

The Supreme Court held that the order of supersession was vitiated by the failure to observe the principle of audi alteram partem.
The Supreme Court held that the New Delhi Municipal Committee was not provided with a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations before supersession, violating principles of natural justice.
The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule dependant on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice had been observed. The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary.
Section 238(1) did not provide for a specific opportunity for the Committee to be heard because as soon as a committee is constituted, it assumes a certain office and status, is endowed with certain rights and burdened with certain responsibilities, all of a nature commanding respectful regard from the public. To be stripped of the office and status, to be deprived of the rights, to be removed from the responsibilities, is certainly to visit the committee with civil consequences.
The court also clarified that the opportunity which is required to be given need not be a `double opportunity’ one on factual allegations and another on the proposed penalty. Both may be rolled into one but the person proceeded against must know that he is being required to meet the allegations which might lead to a certain action being taken against him.
Thus, the Supreme Court held that even minimal natural justice should not be excluded when alleged grave situation arises under section 238(1) as depriving these rights without fair hearing would amount to civil consequences.