Law Articles - India's Most Authentice Free legal Source Online

Home

Top
Rate
d

Submit
Article

Advanced
Search

FAQ

RSS
Cont
Lawy Law
act
ers in Foru Feeds
Us
India
m

Register your Copyright Online

We offer copyright registration right from your desktop click here for details.
Latest Articles | Articles 2013 | Articles 2012 | Articles 2011 | Articles 2010 | Articles 2009 | Articles 2008 | Articles 2007 | Articles 2006 | Articles 2000-05

E-mail login

Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi

We provide fast, cost effective and Hassle free solution.
Contact us at Ph no: 9650499965 (Divorce Law Firm Delhi)

Main Categories

Welcome!

Banking and Finance laws

Case Laws

Advanced
Enter KEYWO

Please login or register a new free

account.

Search

Civil Laws

Random Pick

Company Law
Constitutional Law
Consumer laws
Contracts laws
Criminal law

Password

Exceptions To The Principles of Natural Justice ( Save This

as .pdf
) article directing for foundation of a
is an

Published : June 01, 2013 | Author : Shivashk100@legalserviceindia.com

balance between economic development of the
Category : Constitutional Law | Total Views : 11436 | Rating :
country and the basic human right to food of its
citizens...
Shivashk100@legalserviceindia.com
Shivaraj S.H., LL,M., UGC NET
K.L.E.Society's Law
Print |
Email to friend
College, Bangalore.

Dubai laws
Environmental Law
family law
Human Rights laws
Immigration laws
Insurance / Accident Claim
Intellectual Property

Share on facebookShare
on
twitterShare
on
emailShare on printMore
Sharing Services

full story | send to friend

View articles | Contact author

Statistics

Total Articles

Exceptions To The Principles Of Natural Justice

Total Authors

Now it is well established preposition of Law that the

International Law
Total Views
Principles of Natural Justice supplements the enacted statute
with necessary implications, accordingly administrative
Juvenile Laws
Total categories
authorities performing public functions are generally
Law - lawyers & legal Professionrequired to adopt fair procedure and in relation to a variety
of different circumstances, we considered the content of the
Legal outsourcing
Law Forum
requirements of procedural fairness. A person may also have
Media laws
legitimate expectation of fair hearing or procedural
fairness/treatment but as Natural Justice Principles is to be
Medico legal
invoked in doing justice, where their observance leads to
Miscellaneous
injustice they may be disregarded. There are several well
Real estate laws
established limitations on Principles of Natural Justice.
Existence of certain circumstances deprives the individual
Tax Laws
from availing the benefit of principles of natural justices,

9491530

Torts Law
Woman Issues
Workplace Equality & NonDiscrimination

authors in this research work undertakes to cover the

circumstances in which judiciary admitted the exceptions to
the observance of Principles of Natural Justice.

Principles of Natural Justice are ultimately weighed in the

balance of fairness and hence the Courts have been
circumspect in extending principles of natural justice to
More Options
situations where it would cause more injustice rather than
Most read articles
justice so, where a right to be fairly heard has been denied, it
is more probably a case of bad decision than of true
Most rated articles
exception, then principles of natural justice can be discarded.
Application of the principles of natural justice can be
excluded either expressly or by necessary implication,
Subscription subject to the provisions of Article 14 and 21 of the
constitution.
However, along with constitutional limitations
Subscribe now and receive free articles
and
updates instantly.
in India Common Law exception are also preferred.
Yet Another Category

2. Common Law Exceptions to the Principles of Natural

Justice:
The requirements of procedural fairness are on first
appearance applicable to Judicial, Quasi-Judicial and
Administrative Proceedings, however, the decision maker
may be exempt from all or some of the procedural
safeguards that would otherwise be required. Several factors
may be identified as capable of excluding the normal
Copyright Registration
procedural fairness requirements in Common Law Courts
are: Scripts
To Copyright Your Books, Videos, Songs,
etc
Call us at: 9891244487 / or email
(i)
at:admin@legalserviceindia.com
(ii)
Top Law Colleges
(iii)

Law Updates:
Income-Tax
Family law
Company Law
Constitutional Law
Partnership firms
Immigration Law
Cyber Law
Lok Adalat, legal Aid & PIL
Trademarks
Woman issues
Medico Legal
Consumer laws
Criminal laws
Supreme Court Judgments

Exclusion
in
case
of
emergency,
Express
statutory
exclusion,
Where discloser would be prejudicial to public interests
(iv)
Where
prompt
action
is
needed,
(v) Where it is impracticable to hold hearing or appeal,
(vi) Exclusion in case of purely administrative matters.
(vii) Where no right of person is infringed,
(viii) The procedural defect would have made no difference
to
the
outcome.
(ix) Exclusion on the ground of no fault decision maker.
We
shall
examine
them
in
turn.
2.
(i)
Exclusion
in
cases
of
Emergency:
In India it has been generally acknowledged that in cases of
extreme urgency, where interest of the public would be
jeopardizes by the delay or publicity involved in a hearing, a
hearing before condemnation would not be required by
natural justice or in exceptional cases of emergency where
prompt action, preventive or remedial, is needed, the
requirement of notice and hearing may be obviated.
Therefore, if the right to be heard will paralyze the process
Law
will
exclude
it.
Therefore in situations where dangerous buildings is to be
demolished, or a company has to wound up to save
depositors or there is a eminent danger to peace or trade
dangerous to society is to prohibited, dire social necessity
requires exclusion of elaborate process of fair hearing. In the

same manner where power theft was detected by officials,

immediate disconnection of supply is not violative principles
of
Natural
Justice.
The emergency power (defense) Act, 1934 authorized the
Government, to make regulation under the Act For the
detention of a person whose detention appears to the
secretary of the state to be expedient in the interest of public
safety or the Defense of the Realm. Repealing the
contention that the legislation which encroached upon the
liberty of the subject should be construed in favour of the
subject, the House of Lords held that the legislation was war
measure relating to the safety of the nation itself which
required a drastic invasion of the liberty of the subject, the
Lord Maugham Observed that Under the Statute and
Regulation made there under the Secretary of the State was
under no duty to give prior notice or opportunity to be heard.
In the same manner in India also similar exclusion were
created in emergency legislations, which is dealt under
separate heading in succeeding part of this paper.
In cases of urgency or where the giving prior notice would
defeat the very object the action, where the function is
purely administrative in nature and the principle of prior
hearing as required by natural justice does not apply, but
prior hearing must be given where an administrative action
will result in civil consequences to the party to the dispute.
In Swadeshi Cotton mills v. Union of India the Court held
that the word immediate in Section 18AA of the Industries
(Development and Regulation) Act cannot stand in the way
of the application of the rules of the Natural Justice. U/Sec
18AA of above said Act the Central Government can take
over an industry after investigation, but U/Sec 18AA(1) the
Govt. can take over without any notice and hearing on the
ground that production has been or is likely to be affected
and hence immediate action is necessary the question was
whether Sec 18AA(1) excludes the principles of Natural
Justice the Govt. took the plea that since Section 18AA
clause (1) relates to emergent situations, therefore Principles
of Natural Justice are excluded. Furthermore it also
contended that since Section 18A provides for hearing and
Sec 18AA(1) does not provides for conduct of hearing,
consequentially parliament has excluded hearing therein,
Court rejecting these arguments held that even in emergency
situations the competing claims of hurry and hearing are to
be reconciled, no matter the application of the Audi Alterm
Partem rule at the pre-decisional stage may be a short
measure of fair hearing adjusted, attuned and tailored to
exigency
of
the
situation.
2.
(ii)
Express
Statutory
Exclusion:
As we already analyzed in Liversidge v. Anderson exclusion
can be made through clearly and expressly made Act of
the parliament. An Act of Parliament may dispense with the
requirements of fair procedures where they would otherwise

be required. A statute may, for example, permit the exercise

of powers without notice. In the interests of administrative
efficiency and expedition, the requirements of fairness have
been excluded by statutory provisions which, for example,
enable decision makers to decline to conduct an oral hearing,
or to entertain particular kinds of representations and
objections.
However, any statutory exclusion of procedural fairness will
be construed strictly. Thus, where a statutory provision did
not expressly or by necessary implication exclude the right
to legal professionals privilege, the provision was
interpreted not to do so. Subordinate legislation purporting
to exclude a hearing or to hold a hearing or conduct an
inquiry is conferred by a statute, a refusal to hold the inquiry
may constitute a denial of natural justice if fairness plainly
demands that a hearing be held. Ex .p Gurdian Newspaper
Ltd (Written Submissions) in this case Court held that, an
express statutory power to proceed without a hearing will
not necessarily exclude the right to make informal or written
representations, similarly, an express statutory provision
excluding a duty to give reasons has been held not to
exclude a duty to disclose the substance of the case so that
an applicant for citizenship could make representation.
In a number of cases, the view has been expressed judicially
that there is no question of invocation of natural justice, or
hearing the affected party, when legislative action of an
authority is brought under the scrutiny of the Courts.
In Defense of India Act, 1962 Rule 29 and 30 of the Act
empowers the executive to make orders for externment for
the maintenance of public order. No hearing was necessary
for the purpose of making such Order to direct the removal,
detention, externment, interment and the like of any person,
if it is satisfied that such order was necessary for the
defense or efficient conduct of military operations and
maintenance
of
Public
order.
Also in Laxmi Khandsari v. State of U.P in this case SC held
that notification of UP Govt. Sugar Cane (Control) Order,
1966 directing that no power-crusher of Khandsari unit in
reserved area of a Sugar mill will work during the period Oct
9 to Dec 1st , 1980 is legislative in character hence Principle
of Natural Justice attracted. In the same manner, Charanlal
Shahu v. U.O.I, in this case the constitutionality of the
Bhopal Gas leak disaster (processing of claims) Act, 1985
was involved. The SC held: for legislation by parliament no
principles of natural justice is attracted, provided such
legislation is within the competence of legislature.
In Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd. SC held that no
principles of Natural Justice had been violated when the
Govt. issued a notification fixing the Prices of certain drugs.
The Court reasoned that since the notification showed from a
legislative act and not an administrative one so Principles of

Natural

Justice

would

not

applied.

There are however, cases where the SC has adopted a

somewhat liberal approach in the matter of procedural
safeguards to the individual affected even tough prima facie
administrative function could be characterized legislative in
character. The judicial strategy in such cases is to hold the
action of administration in question as administrative.
Example, in State of Assam v. Bharat Kalabhandar, a
notification issued by the executive under the defense of
India rules 1962 notified certain employments as essential
for securing the public safety and for maintaining the
supplies and services necessary to the life of the community,
another notification relating to Order of payment of specific
cost of living allowance to all workers drawing pay up to Rs
400 per month and also to worker employed on daily wages
in essential services. No question about hearing in the case
of the former notification was raised. However, about the
later notification, which prima facie a large number of
persons and could thus be characterized as legislative. The
SC took the view that it was necessary to consult the interest
affected before its issue as its effect was to disturb settled
industrial relation whether based on contract or industrial
awards. Tough, on account of the emergency the Court
refrained from holding the order as quasi-judicial, yet the
whole approach of the Court shows that it would have held
so
had
the
emergency
not
been
there.
Where public policy demands that certain information in
possession of state shall not be disclosed, as it is in the
interest of security of the state. In Malak Singh v. State of
Punjab and Haryana SC held that the maintenance of
Surveillance Register by the Police is confidential document
neither the person whose name is entered in the Register nor
the any other member of the public can have excess to it.
Furthermore, the Court observed that observance of the
principles of Natural justice in such a situation may defeat
the very purpose of surveillance and there is every
possibility of the ends of justice being defeated instead of
being
served.
In S.P. Gupta v. U.O.I, where the SC held that no
opportunity of being heard can be given to an additional
judge of HC before his name is dropped from being
confirmed it may be pointed out that in a country like India
surveillance may provide a very serious constraint on the
liberty of the people, therefore the maintenance of the
surveillance Register cannot be so utterly administrative and
non-judicial that it is difficult to conceive the application of
the
rules
of
natural
justice.
Even Right to The Information Act, 2005 provides express
provisions to protect certain information from discloser such
as,
(a) Information, disclosure of which would prejudicially

affect their sovereignty and integrity of India, the security,

strategic, scientific or economic interest of the State, etc
(b) information which has been barred by Court from
disclosure.
(c) the information, the disclosure of which cause breach of
privilege of parliament or the state legislature.
(d) Information relating commercial confidence, IPR etc.
(e) Information available to a person in his fiduciary
relationship.
(f) Information which impair the process of investigation or
prosecution
of
offenders.
(g)
Information
relating
copy
right
etc.
2. (iv) Where prompt action is needed/ exclusion in cases
of
interim
preventive
action:
Desirably, it may be to allow a hearing or an opportunity to
make representations, or simply to give prior notice, before a
decision is taken, summary action may be alleged to be
justifiable when an urgent need for protecting the interests of
other persons arises. There are in fact remarkably few
situations in which the enforcement powers exist. For
example, interim anti-social behavior orders made without
notice are not unlawful where it is necessary for the court to
act urgently to protect the interests of a third party or to
ensure that the order of the court is effective.
There are numerous illustrations of statutory provisions
which for reasons of public safety or public health permit
public authorities to interfere with property or other rights.
For example: the destruction of infected crops; the
prevention of the bus lank being carried on in a manner
detrimental to the interests of the public or of depositors or
other creditors; prohibition on entry to an airport; suspension
of the license of a public service vehicle seizure of obscene
works;
Seizure of food suspected of not complying with food safety
requirements; local authorities may examine and test, drains
and test sewers, drains and sanitary conveniences that it
believes
to
be
defective
etc,.
In the same manner if the administrative authority passed a
suspension order in the nature of a preventive action and not
a final order, the application of the principles of natural
justice may be excluded. In Abhay Kumar v. K Srinivasan,
the institution passed an Oder debarring the student from
entering the premises of the institution and attending classes
till the pendency of a criminal case against him for stabbing
a co-student. This order was challenged on the ground that it
violates Principles of Natural Justice. The Delhi High
Court rejecting the contention held that such an order could
be compared with an order of suspension pending enquiry
which is preventive in nature in order to maintain campus
peace and hence the principles of natural justice shall not
apply.

It was also in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India recognized

that where an obligation to give notice and opportunity to
be heard would obstruct the taking of prompt action,
especially action of a preventive or remedial nature, right of
prior notice and opportunity to be heard may be excluded by
implication. In this case it is interesting to see that natural
justice entails new meaning and place under
Indian Constitution at the same time Court recognized the
circumstance under which Principles of natural Justice can
be
discarded.
2. (v) Where it is impracticable to hold hearing or
appeal:
It is one of the most convincing reason that the number of
persons affected by a particular order, act or decision is so
great as to make it manifestly impracticable for them all to
be given an opportunity of being heard by the competent
authority beforehand. This is the reason why representation
may not be required for the making of regulation of a
legislative character in absence of legislative requirement.
For example, In R v. Aston University Senate Ex.p the large
number of applicants competing for scarce resource may
make it impracticable to offer each applicant a hearing. If,
for example, there are 1,000 applicants for 100 places
available in University law department it may be impossible
to afford interviews to many of those who, from the
particulars supplied with their written applications, appear
sufficiently meritorious or suitable to warrant fuller personal
consideration. In this circumstance even if the court finds
that a breach of procedural fairness has occurred,
administrative impracticability may still be relied upon as a
reason for refusing a remedy in its discretion.
In R V Radhakrishanan v. Osmania University, where the
entire MBA entrance examination was cancelled by the
University because of mass copying, the Court held that
notice and hearing to all candidates not possible in such a
situation, which had assumed national proportions, Thus the
court sanctified the exclusion of the rules of natural justice
on the ground of administrative impracticability.
In the same way the Supreme Court in Andhra Steel
Corporation v. A.P. State Electricity Board held that a
concession can be withdrawn at any time without affording
any opportunity of hearing to affected persons except when
the law requires otherwise or the authority is bound by
promissory estoppels. In this case the electricity board had
withdrawn the concession in electricity rate without any
notice and hearing to the appellant. Therefore, where an
order of extension was cancelled before it became
operational.
In Union of India v. O. Charadhar, held that cancellation of
panel, select, reserve, waiting, merit or rank lists, individual
hearing to candidate is not necessary where the mischief in

conducting selection was so widespread and all the mischief

in conducting the result, that it was difficult to identify the
persons unlawfully benefited or unlawfully deprived of
selection. Thus even the consequent termination of service
does not attract principles of natural justice.
Also in W.B. Electricity Regulatory Commission v. CESC
Ltd., it opined that when a statute confers a right which is in
conformity with the principles of natural justice, the same
cannot be negativated by a Court on an imaginary ground
that there is a likelihood of an unmanageable hearing before
the authority or practical inconvenience. In this case the
W.B. Electricity Regulatory Commission had contended that
though Act requires consumers hearing before fixing tariff,
yet giving hearing to 17 lakh electricity consumers would be
a practical impossibility and inconvenience. Rejecting the
contention, the Court observed that the Act does not give
individual rights to every consumer and the same is
regulated by Regulations, therefore, the question of
indiscriminate
hearing
does
not
arise.
Subsequent fair hearing or Appeal: if the public authority to
make decisions which do not comply fully with procedural
fairness requirements if the person affected has recourse to
another hearing or appeal which itself provides fairness.
There are situations where the absence of procedural fairness
before a decision is made can be subsequently and
adequately be cured, for example on appeal a prior hearing
may be better than a subsequent hearing, but a subsequent
hearing is better than no hearing at all; and in some cases the
courts have held that statutory provisions for an
administrative
appeal.
2. (vi) Exclusion in case of purely administrative matters:
Where nature of authority is purely administrative no right
of hearing can be claimed, where a student of the university
was removed from the rolls for unsatisfactory academic
performances without being given any per-decisional
hearing. The Supreme Court in Jawaharlal Nehru University
v. B.S. Narwal held that the very nature of academic
adjudication appears to negative any right of an opportunity
to be heard. Therefore if the competent academic authorities
examine and asses the work of a student over a period of
time and declare his work unsatisfactory, the rules of natural
justice
may
be
excluded.
In the same manner in Karnataka Public Service
Commission v. B.M. Vijay Shanker when the commission
cancelled the examination of the candidate because, in
violation of rules, the candidate wrote his roll number on
every page of the answer-sheet, the Supreme Court held that
the principles of natural justice were not attracted, the Court
observed that the rule of hearing be strictly construed in
academic discipline and if this was ignored it would not only
be against the public interest but also erode the social sense
of fairness. However, this exclusion would not apply in case

of disciplinary matter or where the academic body performs

non-academic functions granting sanction of prosecution is
purely administrative functions, therefore, principles of
natural justice are not attracted. In the same manner
cancellation of bid for failure to execute lease deed and to
deposit security amount, held, would not attract principles of
natural
justice.
2. (vii) Where no right of person is infringed:
In some case it has been suggested that a claimant who is for
some reason undeserving for certain claims (due to absence
of right to claim) may forfeit the right to procedural fairness.
Where no right has been conferred on person by any statute
nor any such right arises from common law the principles of
natural justice are not applicable, this based on the principle
Ebi Jus ebi remedium and Injuria sine damano the earlier
stands for where there is right there is remedy and later
stands for there shall be legal right or interest to claim some
interest
or
benefit.
In J.R. Vohra v. Indian Export House (p) Ltd. The Delhi Rent
Control Act makes provisions for the creation of limited
tenancies, Section 21 and 37 of the Act provide for the
termination of limited tenancies. The combined effect of
these sections is that after the expiry of the term a limited
tenancy can be terminated and warrant of possession can be
issued by the authority to the landlord without any notice of
hearing to the tenant. Upholding the validity of warrant of
possession without complying with the principles of natural
justice, the Supreme Court held that after the expiry of the
period of any limited tenancy, a person has no right to stay in
possession and hence no right of his is prejudicially affected
which may warrant the application of the principles of
natural
justice.
In the same manner the Court in Andhra Steel Corporation v.
A.P. State Electricity Board held that a concession can be
withdrawn at any time without affording any opportunity of
hearing to affected persons except when the law requires
otherwise or the authority is bound by promissory estoppels.
In this case the electricity board had withdrawn the
concession in electricity rate without any notice and hearing
to the appellant. Therefore, where an order of extension was
cancelled before it became operational or the order of
stepping up salary was withdrawn before the person was
actually paid or the service of the probationer terminated
without charge the principles of natural justice are not
attracted.
2. (viii) The procedural defect would have made no
difference
to
the
outcome:
There are several instances where Court discarded principles
of natural justice after satisfying that the outcome of the case
could not have been different had natural justice been fully
observed. These decisions have been sought to be explained
on the ground that the relief sought was discretionary, or on

the ground breach makes an order voidable rather than void.

It is submitted that neither explanation is sufficient. As to the
former, it is right to note that a refusal of relief on the ground
that it would make no difference may be explained either
as an exercise of the courts discretion as to the grant of
relief, as a part of the consideration of whether the principles
of fairness have in fact been infringed at all.
Useless formality theory is no doubt yet another exception
to the application of the principles of natural justice but it
should be used with great caution and circumspection by the
Court otherwise it would turn out to be wheel of miscarriage
of justice. It can only be used where on the admitted or
undisputed facts only one conclusion is possible and under
the law only one penalty is permissible, the Court may not
insist on the observance of the principles of natural justice
because it would be futile to order its observance.
In R v. Haberdashers Askes School Governors , a decision
by governors refusing to correct an inaccurate statement in a
consultation paper, and refusing to extend the consultation
period was held not unfair because the error in question
could not have led a person reading the pamphlet to have
reached
a
different
Conclusion.
In Dharmarathmakara Rai Bhadur Arcot Ramaswmay
Mudaliar Educational Institution v. Education Appellate
Tribunal In this case a lecturer, who had been granted leave
for doing M. Phil, in violation of leave condition, had joined
Ph. D course. She was given notice and after considering her
reply, wherein she had admitted joining Ph. D course, her
service was terminated. She challenged the termination order
before Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (discipline
and Control) Act, 1975 subsequently it is appealed to HC
where termination was held invalid, but SC held that
opportunity to show cause was not necessary where facts are
undisputed and the affected person could not fourth any
valid
defence.
Similarly in KSRTC v. S.G. Kotturappa, the Court opined
that where the respondent had committed repeated acts of
misconduct and had also accepted minor punishment, he is
not entitled to benefit of principles of natural justice as it
would be mere formality, that too, in the case of misconduct
by a daily wager. Supreme Court remarked; the question as
to what extent principles of natural justice are required to be
complied within a particular case would depend on fact
situation obtaining in each case. The principles of natural
justice cannot be applied in vacuum. They cannot be put in
any straitjacket formula. The principles of natural justice are
furthermore, not required to be complied with, if it will lead
to
a
mere
empty
formality.
In Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet Singh, the SC held that
in view of the binding nature of the award the Court will not
insist on compliance with the principles of natural justice as

it would be a mere empty formality unless factual position or

legal implications under the award is disputed. In this case
award was challenged on the ground that everyone in the
constituency was not heard, therefore, no unilateral decision
can be taken by banks without giving employees notice and
hearing.
However useless formality theory has still not been able to
firmly established in administrative law because there exists
a strong opinion which suggest that this theory is wrong as a
Court cannot prejudge the issue and there is scope for abuse
on the basis of self imposed assumptions of authority.
2. (ix) Exclusion on the ground of no fault of decision
maker:
Where alleged procedural unfairness is not the fault of the
tribunal or other decision-maker is a claimant still entitled to
have the decision quashed on the basis that he has not been
accorded procedural fairness? Where, at a hearing on notice,
the absence of procedural fairness is due to the conduct of,
or a failure by, the other party to the hearing, it was at one
time thought that the courts had discretion to quash the
decision. Thus, where prison authorities failed to make
known to a prisoner charged with an offence against
discipline the existence of a witness to the alleged offence,
the determination of the prison board of visitors was quashed
on the grounds of unfairness, ambit that this was not caused
by
the
tribunal
itself.
Where an important prosecution witness on a charge of
shoplifting deceived the Court as to his reason for resign
from the Metropolitan Police (being in fact required to
resign following disgraceful conduct including a conviction),
it was held that his deliberate concealment constituted
unfairness, so that the conviction should be quashed.
It has been suggested, however, that these decisions should
be viewed not as resting on the principles of fairness, but as
based upon the alternative principles that fraud unravels
everything, or because the process leading to conviction
has been distorted and vitiated as a result of breach of duty
owed to the procedure court and to the defence prosecutor.
The principles of fairness, in contrast, are concerned solely
with the propriety of the procedure adopted by the decisionmaker, but this approach are the responsibility of the
prosecution or respondent, but which cannot be
characterized
as
fraud
or
breach
of
duty.
In the same manner it may be futile to comply with the
principles of natural justice would be where administrative
action is perse illegal as an ineligible candidate has been
considered for appointment. It has been held that the
principles of natural justice may not be applied unless
prejudice is caused and there is no prejudice if an ineligible
candidate is considered for appointment. Likewise, as
general rule, a person who has himself impeded or frustrated

the service of notice of impeding action cannot afterwards be

heard to complain that he did not receive actual notice. But
where the mistake is due to the conduct of the applicants
legal representative, the position is not entirely clear.
In R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, the
applicant had lodged an appeal against the Home Secretarys
decision to make a deportation order against him. Notice of
appeal was sent to his solicitors, who misaddressed the letter
when sending it on to the applicant, who consequently never
received notice of the appeal. The appeal was therefore
dismissed in his absence. On an application for judicial
review of the decision to dismiss the appeal, on the ground
that the applicant had been denied a fair (or any) hearing, the
House of Lords held that a party cannot complain of a denial
of fair hearing where he failed to make use of an opportunity
to have his case heard through the negligence of his legal
adviser, even if he himself is not responsible in any way for
that failure. But in India law on this issue is quite clear that it
is good ground to reopen the hearing of case on the ground
of negligence of Legal representative resulting injustice the
party.
3.
Conclusion
Authors are of the conclusion that the Courts both in India
and England in relation to administrative proceedings
created various exception to the requirement of Natural
Justice Principles and procedure there off. However, these
exceptions are all circumstantial and not conclusive, every
exception to be adjudged admissible or otherwise only after
looking into the facts and circumstances of each case. The
main objective behind the reconciliation between the
inclusion and exclusion of protection of Principles of Natural
Justice is to harmoniously construe individuals natural
rights of being heard and fair procedure as well as the public
interest. Larger public interest is to be allowed to override
the individuals interest where the justice demands.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
** Lecturer, K.L.E. Societys Law College, Bangalore, Email:
shivashk100@gmail.com
** Lecturer, K.L.E. Societys Law College, Chikkodi, Email:
kssbelagali@gmail.com
# I.P. Massey , Administrative Law, VII ed. 2008,
( Lucknow: Eastern Book Company), at. p. 263.
#
Liversidge
v.
Anderson,
(142)
AC
206
# Neelama v. Harindeer, (1990) 2 SCC 746.
#
AIR
1981
SC
818.
#
(142)
AC
206
#
Re
A
(2006)
EWHC
96.
# R v. Secretary of State for Home department Ex.p, (1998)
1
W.L.R.
763.
#
AIR
1981
SC
873.
#
(1990)
1
SCC
613.
#
(1987)2
SCC
720.
#
AIR
1967
SC
1766

# M.P.Jain and S.N.Jain, Principles of Administrative law VI

ed. (2010),( Reprint 2011), (Gurgaon; Lexis Nexis, Butter
Worths
Wdhava
Nagpur),
at,
p.267.
#
AIR
1981
SC
760
#
(1981)
SC
C87.
#
Sec
8
and
9
# Harry Woolf, Jeffrey Joweell and Andrew Le Sueur, De
Smiths Judicial Review, VI ed. (2007), (London Sweet and
Maxwell
Ltd)
at,p.451
#
Ibid,
at,
p.452
# I.P. Massey , Administrative Law, VII ed. ( 2008)
( Lucknow: Eastern Book Company), at. P. 267, see also AIR
981
Del
381.
#
AIR
1978
SC
597
#
(1969)
2
Q.B.
538.
# Supra 18 at, p. 266 and see also AIR 1974 AP 283.
#
(1991)
3
SCC
263.
#
(2002)
3
SCC
146.
#
(2002)
8
SCC
715.
# Woolf Harry, Jeffrey Joweell and Andrew Le Sueur, De
Smiths Judicial Review, VI ed. (2007), (London Sweet and
Maxwell
Ltd),
at,p.
456.
#
AIR
1980
SC
1666.
#
(1992)
2
SCC
206.
# State of Karnataka v. Saveen Kumar Shetty, (2002) 3 SCC
426
# Cinnamond v. British Airports Authority, (1980) 1 W.L.R.
582
#
AIR
1985
SC
475
#
(1991)
3
SCC
263.
# High Court of Patna v. M.M.P. Sinha, (1997) 10 SCC 409.
# Woolf Harry, Jeffrey Joweell and Andrew Le Sueur, De
Smiths Judicial Review, VI ed. (2007), (London Sweet and
Maxwell
Ltd),
at
473
# I.P. Massey , Administrative Law, VII ed, (2008),
(Lucknow: Eastern Book Company), at. p. 275.
#
Supra
note
34.
at.
p.
275
#
(2006)
8
SCC
647.
# R v. Blundeston Prison Board of Vsitors (1982) 1 All E.R.
646.
# R. v. Knightbridge Crown Court, (1986) Q.B. 1
# Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 54.
# (1990) 1 A.C. 876
The
author
can
be
reached
at: Shivashk100@legalserviceindia.com

1
Rate this article!
Poor

5
Excelle
nt

Rate Now !

Most viewed articles in Constitutional Law category

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, The Father of Indian Constitution
Position of Fundamental Rights during Emergency
Prospective Vs. Retrospective
Maneka Gandhi
Election Commission of India
Concept of Welfare State and Its Relevance in Indian Scenario
Vulnerable Groups in India - Status, Schemes, Constitution of India
Principles of Natural Justice In Indian Constitution
Reasonable Classification under article 14
Hart
Right To Privacy Under Article 21 and the Related Conflicts
Analysis Of Writ Of Mandamus
Indian Judiciary
India
Creamy Layer: The Mandal Commission View
Revisional Power vis

Most recent articles in Constitutional Law category

Effectiveness of Parliamentary Control over Delegated Legislation
Preventive Detention and Constitution of India - Effect on Human Rights
Constitutional philosophy of Writs: A detailed analysis
Freedom of Religion
Memoirs of A Funeral Slave
Management of Water and Water Laws In India
Audi Alterem Partem Right to fair hearing
Indian Judicial Approach Regarding Right to Die
Public Interest Litigation - A Critical Evaluation

 Critical Appraisal to the Existing Framework of Freedom of Speech and Expression In India
Autochthonous nature of the Constitution of India
Right to Information Act - Boon or Bane
Understanding of the term Decree, Order, Judgment and Mesne Profit
Res Sub Judice, Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata
Fundamental Duties under the Constitution as Legally Enforceable Duties under Different Statutes
The Constitutional Validity of The Minimum Wages Act,1948

Article Comments
there are no comments...

Post Your Comments

Name

Email

Your comments

Privacy & Terms

Note : Currently, user comments are moderated and will be posted only after appro