Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1986 (0.07 seconds)
Documents citing A. K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1969

The Collector vs K. Krishnaveni on 3 September, 2019

35. From the aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that the opportunity to provide hearing before making any decision was considered to be a basic requirement in the court proceeding. Later on, this principle was applied to other quasi-judicial authorities and other tribunals and ultimately it is now clearly laid down that even in the administrative actions, where the decision of the authority may result in civil consequences, a hearing before taking a decision is necessary. It was, thus, observed in A.K. Kraipak case [(1969) 2 SCC 262] that if the purpose of rules http://www.judis.nic.in 51 OF 62 W.A.No.1995 of 2018 of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice, one fails to see how these rules should not be made available to administrative inquiries.
Madras High Court Cites 99 - Cited by 6 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Suneeta vs University Of Jodhpur on 1 September, 1981

In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (supra) recommendations made by the Special Selection Board had been considered by the Home Ministry as well as by the Union Public Service Commission and the list that had been approved by the Union Public Service Commission was challenged by the appellant in their writ petitions before the Supreme Court. Thus there was no question of further approval of the list that was approved by the Union Public Service Commission by any other authority and the question of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that it was premature did not arise before the Supreme Court. Mr. Mehta has placed reliance on the following observations of the Supreme Court:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Justice P.D. Dinakaran vs Hon'Ble Judges Inquiry Committee & Ors on 5 July, 2011

"18. We must straightaway point out that A.K. Kaipak case is a landmark in the development of administrative law and it has contributed in a large measure to the strengthening of the rule of law in this country. We would not like to whittle down in the slightest measure the vital principle laid down in this decision which has nourished the roots of the rule of law and injected justice and fair play into legality. There can be no doubt that if a Selection Committee is constituted for the purpose of selecting candidates on merits and one of the members of the Selection Committee is closely related to a candidate appearing for the selection, it would not be enough for such member merely to withdraw from participation in the interview of the candidate related to him but he must withdraw altogether from the entire selection process and ask the authorities to nominate another person in his place on the Selection Committee, because otherwise all the selections made would be vitiated on account of reasonable likelihood of bias affecting the process of selection. But the situation here is a little different because the selection of candidates to the Haryana Civil Service (Executive) and Allied Services is being made not by any Selection Committee constituted for that purpose but it is being done by the Haryana Public Service Commission which is a Commission set up under Article 316 of the Constitution. It is a Commission which consists of a Chairman and a specified number of members and is a constitutional authority. We do not think that the principle which requires that a member of a Selection Committee whose close relative is appearing for selection should decline to become a member of the Selection Committee or withdraw from it leaving it to the appointing authority to nominate another person in his place, need be 62 applied in case of a constitutional authority like the Public Service Commission, whether Central or State. If a member of a Public Service Commission were to withdraw altogether from the selection process on the ground that a close relative of his is appearing for selection, 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 member and the functioning of the Public Service Commission may be affected. When two or more members of a Public Service Commission are holding a viva voce examination, they are functioning not as individuals but as the Public Service Commission. Of course, we must make it clear that when a close relative of a member of a Public Service Commission is appearing for interview, such member must withdraw from participation in the interview of that candidate and must not take part in any discussion in regard to the merits of that candidate and even the marks or credits given to that candidate should not be disclosed to him."
Supreme Court of India Cites 57 - Cited by 57 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Krishnadatt Awasthy vs State Of M.P on 29 January, 2025

“Great reliance was placed by the learned counsel on A.K. Kraipak & Ors. V. Union of India on the question of natural justice. We do not think that the case is of any assistance to the petitioners. It was a case where one of the persons, who sat as member of the Selection Board, was himself one of the persons to be considered for selection. He participated in the deliberations of the Selection Board when the clams of his rivals were considered. He participated in the decisions relating to the orders of preference and seniority. He participated at every stage in the deliberations of the Selection Board and at every stage there was a conflict between his interest and duty. The court had no hesitation coming to the conclusion that there was a reasonable likelihood of ibis and therefore, there was a violation of the principles of natural justice. In the case before us, the Principal of the Medical College, Srinagar, dissociated himself from the written test and did not participate in the proceedings when his daughter was interviewed. When the other candidates were interviewed, he did not know the marks obtained either by his daughter or by any of the candidates. There was no occasion to suspect his bona fides even remotely. There was not even a suspicion of bias, leave alone a reasonable likelihood of bias. There was no violation of the principals of natural justice.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - H Roy - Full Document

Federation Of Okhla Industrial ... vs Lt Governor Of Delhi And Anr on 4 August, 2018

"14. It was urged on behalf of the hotel owners that the power conferred to fix the minimum wages on the appropriate Government under Section 5(1) is a quasi- judicial power and in exercising that power, it was WP(C) 5217/2017 & connected matters Page 199 of 218 incumbent on the appropriate Government to observe the principles of natural justice. The Government having failed to observe those principles, the fixation of wages made is liable to be struck down. It is unnecessary for our present purpose to go into the question whether the power given under the Act to fix minimum wages is a quasi- judicial power or an administrative power. As observed by this Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India [1969 (2) SCC 263] the dividing line between an administrative power and quasi-judicial power is quite thin and is being gradually obliterated. It is further observed therein that principles of natural justice apply to the exercise of the administrative powers as well. But those principles are not embodied rules. What particular rule of natural justice, if any, should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the tribunal or body of persons appointed for the purpose."
Delhi High Court Cites 116 - Cited by 16 - C H Shankar - Full Document

C.S. Gautam & Anr vs Ut Of Chandigarh & Ors on 22 February, 2019

Initially this Court recognized a sort of demarcation between administrative orders and quasi-judicial orders but with the passage of time the distinction between the two got blurred and thinned out and virtually reached a vanishing point in the judgment of this Court in A.K. Kraipak and others vs. Union of India and 135 of 164 ::: Downloaded on - 10-03-2019 11:53:02 ::: CWP-19265 of 2016 -136- others reported in AIR 1970 SC 150.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 70 - Cited by 1 - H S Sidhu - Full Document

M/S. Lanco-Rani (Jv) vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 6 December, 2016

27. The fact that the Award may have been unanimous and that Mr. Basant Kumar was only one of the Members of the AT does not make even one bit of a difference to the above conclusion. This aspect of the matter has already been dealt with by the Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (supra). There again, it was urged that the ―mere fact that one of the Members of the Board was biased against some of the Petitioners cannot vitiate the entire proceedings.‖ The Supreme Court negated this plea since the Court was essentially concerned with the question whether the ―decision taken by the Board can be considered as having been taken fairly and justly.‖ This was because of the ―conflict between duty and interest.‖ In other words, even if one of the Members of the AT has compromised the essential requirement of fairness by failing to disclose the circumstances which may give rise to justifiable doubts as to independence and impartiality, the Award of the AT would get vitiated.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 6 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Dr.S.David Amirtha Rajan vs The University Grants Commission on 15 October, 2012

14. Great reliance was placed by the learned counsel on A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India on the question of natural justice. We do not think that the case is of any assistance to the petitioners. It was a case where one of the persons, who sat as member of the Selection Board, was himself one of the persons to be considered for selection. He participated in the deliberations of the Selection Board when the claims of his rivals were considered. He participated in the decisions relating to the orders of preference and seniority. He participated at every stage in the deliberations of the Selection Board and at every stage there was a conflict between his interest and duty. The Court had no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that there was a reasonable likelihood of bias and therefore, there was a violation of the principles of natural justice. In the case before us, the Principal of the Medical College, Srinagar, dissociated himself from the written test and did not participate in the proceedings when his daughter was interviewed. When the other candidates were interviewed, he did not know the marks obtained either by his daughter or by any of the candidates. There was no occasion to suspect his bona fides even remotely. There was not even a suspicion of bias, leave alone a reasonable likelihood of bias. There was no violation of the principles of natural justice."
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - V K Sharma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next