Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Regina Begam vs The Secretary To Government on 6 January, 2014
In Fairmount Investments
Ltd. v. Secretary to State for Environment (1976
WLR 1255) Lord Russell of Willowan somewhat
picturesquely described natural justice as 'a fair
crack of the whip' while Geoffrey Lane, LJ. In
Regina v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs Ex
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
W P No. 13320 / 2013
MRS. SUNITA JOSHI VS. STATE OF MP AND ORS.,
M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India And Ors on 27 July, 1999
14. Natural justice is the essence of fair adjudication,
deeply rooted in tradition and conscience, to be
ranked as fundamental. The purpose of following the
principles of natural justice is the prevention of
miscarriage of justice." With regard to the disputed
nature of the useless formality test as discussed in
the M.C. Mehta case (see supra), it is important to
note that in the instant petition, the petitioner and
other similarly placed petitioners, were dismissed by
a cyclostyle order. The order for dismissal for the
Anganwadi workers is identical word by word in all
the 84 cases. Only the name of the village has been
changed in the orders. In such circumstances, this
Court is of the view that following audi alteram
partem will most definitely not be a useless
formality.
State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996
likelihood' of success or if he is entitled to relief
even if there is some remote chance of success. We
may, however, point out that even in cases where
the facts are not all admitted or beyond dispute,
there is a considerable unanimity that the courts can,
in exercise of their 'discretion', refuse certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus or injunction even though
natural justice is not followed. We may also state
that there is yet another line of cases as in State
Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996 (3) SCC 364),
Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. (1996 (5) SCC 460)
that even in relation to statutory provisions
requiring notice, a distinction is to be made between
cases where the provision is intended for individual
benefit and where a provision is intended to protect
public interest. In the former case, it can be waived
while in the case of the latter, it cannot be waived.
We do not propose to express any opinion on the
correctness or otherwise of the 'useless formality
theory' and leave the matter for decision in an
appropriate case, inasmuch as the case before us,
'admitted and indisputable' facts show that grant of
a writ will be in vain as pointed by Chinnappa
Reddy, J."
1