Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.85 seconds)Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957
Section 15 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Rajendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh& Others on 8 August, 1996
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.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
64/76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.32563/2019, etc. Batch
K. L. Tripathi vs State Bank Of India And Others on 4 October, 1983
85. As laid down by Chinnappa Reddy, J., in S.L.Kapoor's case, "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”, would squarely stand attracted to the case on hand, as the facts in the
present case are admitted and indisputable and, therefore, mere issuance of
notice before levying the penalty would in no way alter the situation in which the
petitioners are presently placed.
Godde Venkateswara Rao vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 11 October, 1965
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 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.
M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India And Ors on 27 July, 1999
90. In the backdrop of the factual position, above, this Court is of the
considered view that the above aspects have been gone into in detail by
C.V.Karthikeyan, J., and the learned Judge had come to the conclusion that the
non-issuance of notice would in no way be termed to be violation of principles of
natural justice and this Court, for the reasons recorded by it, as aforesaid, is in
70/76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.32563/2019, etc. Batch
agreement with the view expressed by C.V.Karthikeyan, J. In view of the above,
this Court is of the view that the order passed by C.V.Karthikeyan, J., being a
binding precedent, this Court has to necessarily accept the said view, as even on
an independent application of mind, this Court has expressed its view that non-
issuance of notice in the present case could not be termed to be in violation of
principles of natural justice and, therefore, no reference is required to be made in
this regard by following the reference made by G.R.Swaminathan, J. In doing so,
this Court is not also in any manner breaching judicial discipline, which has been
time and again pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, more recently in its
recent decision in M.S.Bhati's case (supra).
Madha Dental College & Hospital vs The Union Of India on 22 September, 2010
But I have my own misgivings. It is true that
Section 21(5) of the Act does not contemplate issuance of
prior notice. But then, Courts are obliged to read the
requirement of observing the principles of natural justice into
statutory provisions unless they have been specifically
excluded [vide (2014) 13 SCC 506, Swami Devi Dayal
24/76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.32563/2019, etc. Batch
Hospital & Dental College vs. Union of India]. The theory of
useless formality can be pressed into service only when
hearing the affected party would not have made any
difference. If there is no prejudice, then the formality of
issuing notice can be dispensed with. In this case, the
petitioners strongly dispute that the sums demanded from
them represent the price of the minerals. Section 21(5) of the
Act speaks of “price”. According to the petitioners, the cost of
minerals notified for the purpose of Rule 7 cannot be the
price for the purpose of Section 21(5) of the Act.