Smt Malkiat Kaur v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd Patiala And ORS
"#$# %& '( ( )* *+, ,
((((
# # % - .
-$/$ )
+ +
)
(((( $0 %!
% $ *& 1+ *( ) )
!
""
!
#### )
3- 45& $
!
& ! ! ''()''* + ,
"
-.-
. / 1 + /2
!"
'
3 !
!0 .
-+ 45 $' '44( 6 . "
"
"
.
.
.
! "
!!" " .
4$ 45 '44( 47 $4 '44( ,
&
. 80
"
"
!!" " -+ !
! 9 ! "
!"
&!
!!" " :
. !.
!0
!
$; $' '4$5 % !
!
0 0. <
! !
-+
"
"
"
.
,
!
.
! !!0
" = ! !
.. '' 47 '4$;
1: -(2
&. " 0 45 $' '44(
.
+ >")
!
45 $' '44( , &. .. $; 4? '445 + >")
!
!"
.
! &! " = ! !
!
"
&!
. 80 ;
= "
! !
&!
45 $' '44( .!0 .
!
"
& .
= ! 0
"
.
.
"
80
!"
.!0 & "
. !
8 !!0 8 0
+ >")
%
0"
"
! 0
?
" !
8 & .
!0 8
with the principles of natural justice in order to serve the cause of justice and fairness. A Constitution bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Olga Tellis and others vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545 emphasised upon the importance of the adherence to the principles of natural justice, especially audi alteram partem. Speaking through Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, the following was held:
"48. Any discussion of this topic would be incomplete without reference to an important decision of this Court in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, 1986 R.R.R. 341 : (1981) 1 SCR 746, 766 at (p. 147). In that case, the supersession of the New Delhi Municipal Committee was challenged on the ground that it was in violation of the principles of natural justice since, no show cause notice was issued before the order of supersession was passed. Linked with that question was the question whether the failure to observe the principles of natural justice matters at all, if such observance would have made no difference, the admitted or indisputable facts speaking for themselves. After referring to the decisions in Ridge v. Baldwin, 1964 AC 40 at p. 68; John v. Rees, (1970) 1 Ch 345 at p. 402; Annamunthodo v. Oilfield Workers' Trade Union, (1961) 3 All England Reporter 621 at p. 625
'
(HL): Mangarita Fuentes ot al v. Robert L. Shevin, (1972) 32 Law ED 2d 556 at p. 574; Chintepali Agency Tulak Arrack Sales Co-op, Society Ltd. v. Secy, (Food and Agriculture) Govt. of A.P., (1978) 1 SCR 563 at 567, 569-70 at pp. 2316 and 2318 and to an interesting discussion of the subject in Jackson's Natural Justice (1980 Edn.), the Court, speaking through one of us. Chinnappa Reddy, J. said : ''In our view the principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule dependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice had been observed. The non-observation of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary. It will come from a person who has denied justice that the person who has been denied justice is not prejudiced.''
These observations sum up the true legal position regarding the purport and implications of the right of hearing." (emphasis added) ( = !0
!.
!0 $; $' '4$5 0 "!0
!!
@ (
.
. !!
:0 . .
B !!
!C
".
9!!
+
!"!
!
&
. .
0 * "
.!!
! 12
0
"!0 3 )
5
'( ( .
$ D ") E ) '
D &! E )