Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.32 seconds)Section 226 in West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006 [Entire Act]
Section 273 in West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Aligarh Muslim University And Ors vs Mansoor Ali Khan on 28 August, 2000
In Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. v. Mansoor Ali Khan: AIR 2000
SC 2783 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 20 to 24 of the Judgment,
observed as follows:
M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India And Ors on 27 July, 1999
"20. As pointed recently in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India:
Godde Venkateswara Rao vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 11 October, 1965
(1999) 6 SCC 237: 1999 AIR SCW 2754: (AIR 1999 SC
2583), there can be certain situations in which an order
passed in violation of natural justice need not be set aside
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For example
where no prejudice is caused to the person concerned,
interference under Article 226 is not necessary. Similarly, if the
quashing of the order which is in breach of natural justice is
likely to result in revival of another order which is in itself
illegal as in Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of
Andhra Pradesh: (1965) 2 SCR 172: (AIR 1966 SC 828), it
is not necessary to quash the order merely because of violation
of principles of natural justice.
Canara Bank vs V.K. Awasthy on 31 March, 2005
In Canara Bank v. Awasthy: (2005) 6 SCC 321 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has discussed what is called the 'useless formality theory'. In short, what it
means is that if on admitted/undisputed facts, it appears to the Court that giving
a personal hearing, i.e., observing the rule of audi alteram partem, would have
made no difference to the order or action impugned, the order or action shall not
be interfered with by issuance of a writ just because a pre-decisional hearing was
not given to the aggrieved person. In other words, unless the petitioner can
demonstrate that he suffered prejudice or failure of justice by reason of not being
granted a personal hearing before the impugned decision was taken, the Writ
Court may not interfere despite the principles of natural justice not being
observed. The petitioner should be able to show that there is a real likelihood
that the impugned decision would have been different and not adverse or less
adverse to him had a pre-decisional hearing been given, before the petitioner can
assail the decision on the ground of breach of the principles of natural justice.
Legal formulations cannot be divorced from the fact situation of a particular case.
State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996
Since then, this Court has consistently applied the principle of
prejudice in several cases. The above ruling and various other
rulings taking the same view have been exhaustively referred
to in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma: (1996) 3 SCC
364: (1996 AIR SCW 1740: AIR 1996 SC 1669). In that
case, the principle of 'prejudice' has been further elaborated.
Rajendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh& Others on 8 August, 1996
24. The 'useless formality' theory, it must be noted, is an
exception. Apart from the class of cases of "admitted or
indisputable facts leading only to one conclusion" referred to
above, - there has been considerable debate of the application
of that theory in other cases. The divergent views expressed in
regard to this theory have been elaborately considered by this
Court in M.C. Mehta: 1999 AIR SCW 2754: (AIR 1999 SC
2583), referred to above. This Court surveyed the views
expressed in various judgments in England by Lord Reid,
Lord Wilberforce, Lord Woolf, Lord Singham, Megarry, J.
and Straughton, L.J. etc. in various cases and also views
expressed by leading writers like Profs. Garner, Craig, De
Smith, Wade, D.H. Clark etc. Some of them have said that
orders passed in violation must always be quashed for
otherwise the Court will be prejudging the issue. Some others
have said, that there is no such absolute rule and prejudice
must be shown. Yet, some others have applied via-media rules.
We do not think it necessary, in this case to go deeper into
these issues. In the ultimate analysis, it may depend on the
facts of a particular case."