Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.34 seconds)Section 205 in Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
P.Shanthi vs The District Collector on 20 February, 2019
22.The learned Counsel for the petitioner asserted that notice
should have been issued to the petitioner before a decision had been
taken to withdraw the cheque signing authority. That contention was
based not only on the principles of natural justice, but also on the dictum
laid down, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in 2011
(2) CTC 381, in the case of P.Suganthi vs The District Collector cum
Inspector of Panchayat and another. In that case, the District Collector,
who was the respondent therein, had passed an order transferring the
cheque signing power of the appellant, who was the Panchayat President,
to the Block Development Officer, pending an enquiry under Section 205
of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. A Writ Petition was filed
questioning transfer of such authority. The Writ Petition was dismissed.
The petitioner therein took up the issue before the Division Bench on
appeal. In the appeal, the Division Bench held as follows:
Godde Venkateswara Rao vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 11 October, 1965
Similarly, if the
18/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
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 vs. Government of Andhra
Pradesh [1966 (2) SCR 172 = AIR 1966 SC 828], it is not
necessary to quash the order merely because of violation of
principles of natural justice.
S. L. Kapoor vs Jagmohan & Ors on 18 September, 1980
23.Chinnappa Reddy, J. in S.L.Kapoor's case [(1980) 4
SCC 379], laid two exceptions (at p.395) namely, " if upon
admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion was possible",
then in such a case, the principle that breach of natural justice
was in itself prejudice, would not apply. In other words if no
other conclusion was possible on admitted or indisputable facts,
it is not necessary to quash the order which was passed in
violation of natural justice. Of course, this being an exception,
great care must be taken in applying this exception.
K. L. Tripathi vs State Bank Of India And Others on 4 October, 1983
In K.L.Tripathi Vs. State Bank of India ( 1984(1)
SCC 43), Sabyasachi Mukherji, J. (as he then was) also laid
down the principle that not mere violation of natural justice but
de facto prejudice (other than non-issue of notice) had to be
proved. It was observed: quoting Wade Administrative Law, (5th
Ed.PP.472-475) as follows: ( para 31)
"....it is not possible to lay down rigid rules as to when
principles of natural justice are to apply, nor as their scope and
extent ....There must have been some real prejudice to the
complainant; there is no such thing as a merely technical
19/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
infringement of natural justice. The requirements of natural
justice must depend on the facts and circumstances of the case,
the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is
acting, the subject matter to be dealt with and so forth".
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 Vs. S.K. Sharma
( 1996(3) SCC 364). In that case, the principle of 'prejudice' has
been further elaborated.
Rajendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh& Others on 8 August, 1996
25.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 referred to above. This Court surveyed the
views expressed in various judgments in England by Lord Reid,
Lord Wilberforce, Lord Woolf, Lord Bingham, 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.”
Dr. C. Chendroyaperumal vs National Institute Of Port, Management ... on 12 September, 2006
29.A Division Bench of this Court in a Judgement reported in
2006 4 LLN 358 [Dr.C.Chendroyaperumal Vs. National Institute of
Port Management] had also expressed their views on this aspect.