Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.23 seconds)Board Of High School & Intermediate ... vs Ghanshyam Das Gupta And Others on 6 February, 1962
10.2 In arriving at this decision, the Tribunal has relied on the
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Board of High School
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR W.P.(C) 2268/2020 and other connected matters Page 8 of 23
Signing Date:19.11.2024
13:50:27
and Intermediate Education, UP v Ghanshyam Das Gupta4.
Province Of Bombay vs Kusaldas S. Advani And Others on 15 September, 1950
"7. The first question therefore which falls for consideration is
whether any duty is cast on the Committee under the Act and
Regulations to act judicially and therefore it is a quasi-judicial
body. What constitutes "a quasi-judicial act" was discussed in
the Province of Bombay v Kusaldas S. Advani5. The principles
4 AIR 1962 SC 1110
5 (1950) SCR 621, 725
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR W.P.(C) 2268/2020 and other connected matters Page 9 of 23
Signing Date:19.11.2024
13:50:27
have been summarised by Das, J. (as he was then) at p. 725 in
these words:
Nagendra Nath Bora & Another vs The Commissioner Of Hills Divisionand ... on 7 February, 1958
8. These principles have been acted upon by this Court in later
cases : see Nagendra Nath Bora v Commissioner of Hills
Division Appeals, Assam6, Radheshyam Khare v State of Madhya
Pradesh7, Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v Andhra Pradesh State
Road Transport Corporation8, and Shivji Nathubha v Union of
India9. Now it may be mentioned that the statute is not likely to
provide in so many words that the authority passing the order is
required to act judicially; that can only be inferred from the express
provisions of the statute in the first instance in each case and no
one circumstance alone will be determinative of the question
whether the authority set up by the statute has the duty to act
judicially or not. The inference whether the authority acting under
a statute where it is silent has the duty to act judicially will depend
on the express provisions of the statute read along with the nature
6 1958 SCR 1240
7 (1959) SCR 1440
8 1959 Supp (1) SCR 319
9 (1960) 2 SCR 775
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR W.P.(C) 2268/2020 and other connected matters Page 10 of 23
Signing Date:19.11.2024
13:50:27
of the right affected, the manner of the disposal provided, the
objective criterion if any to be adopted, the effect of the decision on
the person affected and other indicia afforded by the statute.
Gullapalli Nageswara Rao And Others vs Andhra Pradesh State Road ... on 5 November, 1958
8. These principles have been acted upon by this Court in later
cases : see Nagendra Nath Bora v Commissioner of Hills
Division Appeals, Assam6, Radheshyam Khare v State of Madhya
Pradesh7, Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v Andhra Pradesh State
Road Transport Corporation8, and Shivji Nathubha v Union of
India9. Now it may be mentioned that the statute is not likely to
provide in so many words that the authority passing the order is
required to act judicially; that can only be inferred from the express
provisions of the statute in the first instance in each case and no
one circumstance alone will be determinative of the question
whether the authority set up by the statute has the duty to act
judicially or not. The inference whether the authority acting under
a statute where it is silent has the duty to act judicially will depend
on the express provisions of the statute read along with the nature
6 1958 SCR 1240
7 (1959) SCR 1440
8 1959 Supp (1) SCR 319
9 (1960) 2 SCR 775
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR W.P.(C) 2268/2020 and other connected matters Page 10 of 23
Signing Date:19.11.2024
13:50:27
of the right affected, the manner of the disposal provided, the
objective criterion if any to be adopted, the effect of the decision on
the person affected and other indicia afforded by the statute.
Shivji Nathubhai vs The Union Of India & Others on 19 January, 1960
8. These principles have been acted upon by this Court in later
cases : see Nagendra Nath Bora v Commissioner of Hills
Division Appeals, Assam6, Radheshyam Khare v State of Madhya
Pradesh7, Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v Andhra Pradesh State
Road Transport Corporation8, and Shivji Nathubha v Union of
India9. Now it may be mentioned that the statute is not likely to
provide in so many words that the authority passing the order is
required to act judicially; that can only be inferred from the express
provisions of the statute in the first instance in each case and no
one circumstance alone will be determinative of the question
whether the authority set up by the statute has the duty to act
judicially or not. The inference whether the authority acting under
a statute where it is silent has the duty to act judicially will depend
on the express provisions of the statute read along with the nature
6 1958 SCR 1240
7 (1959) SCR 1440
8 1959 Supp (1) SCR 319
9 (1960) 2 SCR 775
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR W.P.(C) 2268/2020 and other connected matters Page 10 of 23
Signing Date:19.11.2024
13:50:27
of the right affected, the manner of the disposal provided, the
objective criterion if any to be adopted, the effect of the decision on
the person affected and other indicia afforded by the statute.
Dipa Pal vs University Of Calcutta on 18 February, 1952
11. We thus see that the Committee can only carry out its
duties under Rule 1(1) by judging the materials, placed before it. It
is true that there is no lis in the present case, in the sense that there
are not two contesting parties before the Committee and the matter
rests between the Committee and the examinee; at the same time
considering that materials will have to be placed before the
Committee to enable it to decide whether action should be taken
under Rule 1(1), it seems to us only fair that the examinee against
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR W.P.(C) 2268/2020 and other connected matters Page 13 of 23
Signing Date:19.11.2024
13:50:27
whom the Committee is proceeding should also be heard. The
effect of the decision of the Committee may in an extreme case
blast the career of a young student for life and in any case will put
a serious stigma on the examinee concerned which may damage
him in later life. The nature of misconduct which the Committee
has to find under Rule 1(1) in some cases is of a serious nature, for
example, impersonation, commission of fraud, and perjury; and
the Committee's decision in matters of such seriousness may even
lead in some cases to the prosecution of the examinee in courts.
Considering therefore the serious effects following the decision of
the Committee and the serious nature of the misconduct which may
be found in some cases under Rule 1(1), it seems to us that the
Committee must be held to act judicially in circumstances as these.
Though therefore there is nothing express one way or the other in
the Act or the Regulations casting a duty on the Committee to act
judicially, the manner of the disposal, based as it must be on
materials placed before it, and the serious effects of the decision of
the Committee on the examinee concerned, must lead to the
conclusion that a duty is cast on the Committee to act judicially in
this matter particularly as it has to decide objectively certain facts
which may seriously affect the rights and careers of examinees,
before it can take any action in the exercise of its power under
Rule 1(1). We are therefore of opinion that the Committee when it
exercises its powers under Rule 1(1) is acting quasi-judicially and
the principles of natural justice which require that the other party,
(namely, the examinee in this case) must be heard, will apply to the
proceedings before the Committee. This view was taken by the
Calcutta High Court in Dipa Pal v University of Calcutta11
and B.C. Das Gupta v Bijoyranjan Rakshit12 in similar
circumstances and is in our opinion correct.
B.C. Das Gupta And Anr. vs Bijoyranjan Rakshit And Ors. on 27 June, 1952
11. We thus see that the Committee can only carry out its
duties under Rule 1(1) by judging the materials, placed before it. It
is true that there is no lis in the present case, in the sense that there
are not two contesting parties before the Committee and the matter
rests between the Committee and the examinee; at the same time
considering that materials will have to be placed before the
Committee to enable it to decide whether action should be taken
under Rule 1(1), it seems to us only fair that the examinee against
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR W.P.(C) 2268/2020 and other connected matters Page 13 of 23
Signing Date:19.11.2024
13:50:27
whom the Committee is proceeding should also be heard. The
effect of the decision of the Committee may in an extreme case
blast the career of a young student for life and in any case will put
a serious stigma on the examinee concerned which may damage
him in later life. The nature of misconduct which the Committee
has to find under Rule 1(1) in some cases is of a serious nature, for
example, impersonation, commission of fraud, and perjury; and
the Committee's decision in matters of such seriousness may even
lead in some cases to the prosecution of the examinee in courts.
Considering therefore the serious effects following the decision of
the Committee and the serious nature of the misconduct which may
be found in some cases under Rule 1(1), it seems to us that the
Committee must be held to act judicially in circumstances as these.
Though therefore there is nothing express one way or the other in
the Act or the Regulations casting a duty on the Committee to act
judicially, the manner of the disposal, based as it must be on
materials placed before it, and the serious effects of the decision of
the Committee on the examinee concerned, must lead to the
conclusion that a duty is cast on the Committee to act judicially in
this matter particularly as it has to decide objectively certain facts
which may seriously affect the rights and careers of examinees,
before it can take any action in the exercise of its power under
Rule 1(1). We are therefore of opinion that the Committee when it
exercises its powers under Rule 1(1) is acting quasi-judicially and
the principles of natural justice which require that the other party,
(namely, the examinee in this case) must be heard, will apply to the
proceedings before the Committee. This view was taken by the
Calcutta High Court in Dipa Pal v University of Calcutta11
and B.C. Das Gupta v Bijoyranjan Rakshit12 in similar
circumstances and is in our opinion correct.
Nikita Saxena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 August, 2014
10.7 The decision in Ghanshyam Das Gupta, we may note, was later
distinguished by the Supreme Court in cases of mass or large-scale
usage of unfair means resulting in the need to cancel the examination
altogether, in Nidhi Kaim v State of M.P.14, Bihar School
Examination Board v Subhas Chandra Sinha15 and Sachin Kumar v
DSSSB16. Of these, Sachin Kumar and Nidhi Kaim merely followed
14 (2016) 7 SCC 615
15 (1970) 1 SCC 648
16 (2021) 4 SCC 631
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR W.P.(C) 2268/2020 and other connected matters Page 15 of 23
Signing Date:19.11.2024
13:50:27
Bihar School Examination Board, in distinguishing Ghanshyam Das
Gupta. In Bihar School Examination Board, Ghyamshyam Das
Gupta was held not to be applicable in a case of large scale or mass
copying, thus:
Bihar School Examination Board vs Subhas Chandra Sinha, & Ors on 10 March, 1970
10.7 The decision in Ghanshyam Das Gupta, we may note, was later
distinguished by the Supreme Court in cases of mass or large-scale
usage of unfair means resulting in the need to cancel the examination
altogether, in Nidhi Kaim v State of M.P.14, Bihar School
Examination Board v Subhas Chandra Sinha15 and Sachin Kumar v
DSSSB16. Of these, Sachin Kumar and Nidhi Kaim merely followed
14 (2016) 7 SCC 615
15 (1970) 1 SCC 648
16 (2021) 4 SCC 631
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR W.P.(C) 2268/2020 and other connected matters Page 15 of 23
Signing Date:19.11.2024
13:50:27
Bihar School Examination Board, in distinguishing Ghanshyam Das
Gupta. In Bihar School Examination Board, Ghyamshyam Das
Gupta was held not to be applicable in a case of large scale or mass
copying, thus: