Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 40 (0.46 seconds)The Industries (Development And Regulation) Act, 1951
Section 21 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Industries (Development And Regulation) Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
As pointed out in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election
Commissioner and in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India ibid,
such cases where owing to the compulsion of the fact
situation or the necessity of taking speedy action, no pre-
decisional hearing is given but the action is followed soon
by a full post decisional hearing to the
561
person affected, do not, in reality, constitute an
'exception' to the audi alteram partem rule. To call such
cases an 'exception' is a misnomer because they do not
exclude 'fair-play in action', but adapt it to the urgency
of the situation by balancing the competing claims of hurry
and hearing.
S. L. Kapoor vs Jagmohan & Ors on 18 September, 1980
(e.g. Maneka Gandhi's case, ibid,
and S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, ibid). In the facts and
circumstances of the instant case, there has been a non-
compliance with such implied requirement of the audi alteram
partem rule of natural justice at the pre-decisional stage.
The impugned order therefore, could be struck down as
invalid on that score alone. But we refrain from doing so,
because the learned Solicitor-General in all fairness, has
both orally and in his written submissions dated August 28,
1979, committed himself to the position that under Section
18F, the Central Government in exercise of its curial
functions, is bound to give the affected owner of the
undertaking taken-over, a "full and effective hearing on all
aspects touching the validity and/or correctness of the
order and/or action of take-