REMEDIES UNDER CONTRACTS:

• Compensation for loss or damage by breach of

contract
• Liquidated damages
• Specific Performance.
• Injunction:
• Cancellation.
 Legal Provision
• Article 298- Power to carry on trade, etc.- The executive power of the Union and of each
State shall extend to the carrying on of any trade or business and to the acquisition,
holding and disposal of property and the making of contracts for any purpose:
• Provided that-
• (a) the said executive power of the Union shall, in so far as such trade or business or such
purpose is not one with respect to which Parliament may make laws, be subject in each State
to legislation by the State; and
• (b) the said executive power of each State shall, in so far as such trade or business or such
purpose is not one with respect to which the State Legislature may make laws, be subject to
legislation by Parliament.
• Next relevant Article is Article 299:
• Article 299- Contracts- (1) All contracts made in the exercise of the executive power of the
Union or of a State shall be expressed to be made by the President, or by the Governor of
the State, as the case may be, and all such contracts and all assurances of property made in
the exercise of that power shall be executed on behalf of the President or the Governor by
such persons and in such manner as he may direct or authorize.
• (2) Neither the President nor the Governor shall be personally liable in respect of any
contract or assurance made or executed for the purposes of this Constitution, or for the
purposes of any enactment relating to the Government of India heretofore in force, nor shall
any person making or executing any such contract or assurance on behalf of any of them be
 Government Contract
• A Contract with government will be binding if
• 1. The contract must be expressed to be made in the name of
the President or the Governor of the State, as the case may be
• 2. The contract must be executed on behalf of the President or
the Governor of the State , as the case may be.
• 3. . The contract must be executed by a person duly
authorised by the President or the Governor of the State , as
the case may be.
• 4. Article 299 Applies only to contracts to be executed in
exercise of executive power and not by virtue of statutory
power
 Bhikraj jaipuria v. UOI 1962
 Contract between petitioner and the
government.
 The divisional superintendent, East India Co.
entered into this behalf of the Government.
 he had no authority to enter in to contract
 authority was inferred by the court from
grains tendered by the appellant were
accepted by the Railway administration.
 Statutory Contract
When the State or any official on behalf of the
State has a power to enter into a contract under
a statute.
And also, when it is necessary to fulfil the
prescribed terms and conditions given under a
statute while entering into a contract.
 if a contract incorporates certain terms and
conditions in it which are statutory then the
said contract to that extent is statutory.
 Difference
• provisions in the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the
Forest Contract Rules framed
• for entering into a formal deed between the forest contractor
and the State Government to be executed and expressed in the
name of the Governor in conformity with the requirements of
Act. 299(1).
• whereas under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914; like some other
State Excise Acts, once the bid offered by a person at an auction-
sale is accepted by the authority competent, a
completed contract comes into existence and all that is required
is the grant of a licence to the person whose bid has been
accepted. 
 State of Haryana v. Lal Chand (Air 1984 Sc
1326)
Contracts executed in exercise of statutory
power and contracts which are statutory in
nature-Existence of distinction indicated-
Article 299(1) inapplicable when Union or
State enters into a contract which is statutory
in nature.
 Excise Contract-A statutory contract-
Requirements of Article 299(1) cannot be
invoked.
 Contract & Writ
• Following are the cases
• 1. cases where the relationship is purely contractual and the
contract neither has any statutory basis nor is regulated by
any statute ;
• 2. Cases where a statute regulates the contract between the
petitioner and the administration and there is a direct
breach of a statutory provision;
• 3. Cases where the contract has some statutory ‘flavour’ or
where some public law questions involved, but there is no
violation of any explicit statutory provision;
• 3. Cases where assurance or promise made by the state,
petitioner has acted , prejudice and predicament , but the
agreement is short of Art. 299 of the Constitution.
 In Joshi Technologies International v. Union of India , the
Honourable Supreme Court of India  in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6929
OF 2012  & decided on 14.05.2015
there is no absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition even in
contractual matters or where there are disputed questions of fact or even when
monetary claim is raised.
At the same time, discretion lies with the High Court which under certain
circumstances, can refuse to exercise.
It also follows that under the following circumstances, ‘normally’, the Court would
not exercise such a discretion:
(a) the Court may not examine the issue unless the action has some public law
character attached to it.
(b) Whenever a particular mode of settlement of dispute is provided in the contract,
the High Court would refuse to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the
Constitution and relegate the party to the said made of settlement, particularly when
settlement of disputes is to be resorted to through the means of arbitration.
(c) If there are very serious disputed questions of fact which are of complex nature
and require oral evidence for their determination.
(d) Money claims per se particularly arising out of contractual obligations are
normally not to be entertained except in exceptional circumstances.
 can be summarized as under:
(i) At the stage of entering into a contract, the


State acts purely in its executive capacity and

is bound by the obligations of fairness.
(ii) State in its executive capacity, even in the
contractual field, is under obligation to act
fairly and cannot practice some
discriminations.
(iii) Disputed question of Fact
(iv) avoidance of obligation voluntarily
incurred.
(v) not maintainable to avoid contractual
obligation.
(vi) may sue for specific performance of the
contract, if contract is capable of being
specifically performed. Otherwise, the party
may sue for damages.
(vii) Writ can be issued is denial of equality
before law or equal protection of law ,violation
of principles of natural justice.
(viii) there is no element of public law.

 Quasi- Contractual Liability
SC cleared that section 70 of the Indian Contact Act
does not nullify Article 299(1).
Two provision are separate and distinct
Section 70 ICA- the following condition laid down
1. A person lawfully does something for another
person or delivers something to him.
 2. He does not intend to do gratuitously
3. The other person for whom the services have been
rendered or to whom the goods have been delivered
must have enjoy the benefit thereof.
State of WB v. B. K. Mondal 1962 sc 779
• respondent constructed the building on request of
a sub-divisional officer of the government.
• the building constructed was accepted but
government denied to pay on the ground that
• officer was not authorised to make such request
and the contract is not valid because A. 299 (1) had
not fulfilled.
• SC said contract was not binding as requirements
of 299 were not complied.
• but the government is liable to pay compensation
for the work done under section 70 of ICA.
 Delegated Legislation –
Quasi-Legislative Function of AA
• when legislature delegate its legislative power
to someone else(Executive )
•
Parliament Delegate LP to Executive

• Process and Product = Delegated Legislation

 Process
Parliament •
The Defence of India Act , 1962

Parent Act Section 3 of this Act Empowered central government

to make “such rules as to be necessary and
expedient” for the defence of India & security.

Under Section 3 of this Act central government to

DL make rules for ….
ensuring the safety and welfare or the Armed Forces
of the Union,
ships and aircrafts,
and preventing the prosecution of any work likely to
prejudice the operations of the Armed Forces of the
Union;
 Product -
• Subsidiary rules, which made by the
subordinate Authority(Executive Authority)
• rules, regulation, by laws , orders,
notification, direction etc.
> By-laws are passed by committees or board of
directors or community. They are implantable
only within that society or community and
cannot be enforced outside the community.
Delegated legislation & Executive Legislation

• DL means power delegated to executive by

legislature.
• EL power conferred, given to executive
directly by Constitution.
• Example Art. 123 & 213
 Conditional Legislation
• law made by the competent legislature is complete & full
• law making power not delegated to executive
• Power to determine the circumstances in which law is to be applied
or persons or things to be applied
• It would be a case of conditional legislation where the legisla­ture
empowers an authority-
• (a) To extend the duration of an Act within the maximum period
fixed by the legislature;
• (b) To extend the existing laws to any territory;
• (c) To determine the extent to which limits fixed by law should be
applied;
• (d) To determine the time of applying law;
 Sub- Delegation
• delegatus non-potest delegare
• sub delegation is possible only when parent Act authorise to
delegate further
• sub delegation of DL is valid only if it is authorised, expressly
or impliedly by Parent Act .
• example – Essential Commodities Act 1955
• Section 3 of this Act confers rule making power on Central
Government
• Section 5 of this Act empowers the CG to delegated further
this power to its officers or state government, or the officers
of the state governments
 Retrospective operation of DL
• how far permissible ?
In B. S. Yadav vs. State of Haryana Air 1981 SC 561
If the statute delegate law making power to delegate to
make rules, regulation to have retrospective effect then
two conditions fulfilled;
1. The Act or Statute delegating the law making power
should authorise the delegate to make rule RE.
2. delegate (executive ) should show that there is
rational relationship between the concerned rules and
its Retrospective implementation.
 Development of DL in India
• 1) Jatindra Nath Gupta v. Province of Bihar (AIR
1949 F.C.1753)
• section 1 (3) Bihar Maintance of Public order Act,
1948 which empowered Provincial government to
extend the life of the Act for one year with such
modification ….
• 2) Re Delhi Laws Act, AIR 1951 SC 332
To remove all doubts & Constitutionality of DL
Art. 143 of the Constitution.
 Re Delhi Laws Act
1. The Delhi Laws Act,1912: Section 7 says that “the provincial
government may, by notification in the official gazette, extend with
such restriction and modification as it thinks fit to the province of
Delhi or any part thereof, any enactment which is in force in any part
of British India at the date of such notification.
2. The Ajmer- Marwar (extension of laws) Act, 1947: Section 2, “the
Central Government may, by notification in the official gazette,
extend to the province of Ajmer-Marwar with such restrictions and
modifications as it thinks fit any enactment which is in force in any
other province at the date of such notification.
3. Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950: Section 2 runs as follows, authority
was delicate to the Central Govt. for two purposes & two provisions
were made

i) To Extend & apply with restriction and modification recruitment in

force in part A state to part C state. Valid
ii) There’s an ability where a delegation of powers to Central Govt. can
be done to repeal or amend any corresponding law- Invalid
• “Power to extend enactments to certain Part C States.–
The Central Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, extend to any Part C State (other than
Coorg and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands) or to any
part of such State, with such restrictions and
modifications as it thinks fit, any enactment which is in
force in a Part A State at the date of the notification and
provision may be made in any enactment so extended for
the repeal or amendment of any corresponding law
(other than a Central Act) which is for the time being
applicable to that Part C State.”
 LEGAL ISSUES
• 1. “Was section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912, or any
of the provisions thereof, or to what extent the ultra
vires the legislature which passed the said Act?”
• 2. “Was the section 2 of Ajmer Marwar- an extension
of laws Act 1947 or any of the provisions thereof ultra
vires the legislature which passed the said Act?”
• 3. “Is Section 2 of the Part C States (Laws) Acts 1950
or any of the provisions thereof ultra vires the
parliament?”
• “delegatus non potest delegare” whether applicable
in respect of Parliament ?
 Answers
• (i) The Supreme Court held section 7 as valid
• (ii) Section 2 of Ajmer –Marwara 1947 to be Valid.
• (iii) Half portion of the Part C states Act were valid
• The Supreme Court kept this section valid till
modification and restriction but when it comes to
repeal or amend any act or any laws, it goes invalid.
• So, the Supreme Court declared it void because the
laws were applicable to Part C and held to be an
essential function and delegation would amount to the
excessive delegation on part of Parliament.
 Ruling
• 1. “Separation of Power” is not presented as something related
to the Indian Constitution from its inception.
• 2. Indian Parliament was never a representative of anyone.
Hence, the doctrine of “delegatus non potest delegare” (no
transfer of power can be anymore transferred) cannot be held
to be applying here.
• 3. Parliament cannot relinquish itself by making a parallel
authority.
• 4. Only auxiliary capacities or non-essential tasks can be given.
• 5. There's a restriction on the giving of authority. The
Legislative powers should not transfer its vital processes to
determine the legislation's policy and to enforce it into
definitive standards of behaviours.
• So essential legislative function can not abdicate
 Doctrine of Excessive
Delegation
Legislature can delegate legislative power
subject to its laying down the policy.
 Legislature must declare the policy of law,
lay down legal principles and provide
standards for the guidance.
 Otherwise it would be invalid on account of
Excessive delegation.
delegated legislation is ultra vires when it is not in
conformity with the statute from which it derives its
powers or fails to consider the vital factors required to be
considered by the parent statute or the Constitution.
 delegated legislation must supplement the Act and not
cross the limits of the Act.
 the character of subordinate legislation is to fill the gaps
and perform ancillary and subordinate legislative
functions.
whenever the validity of such legislations are challenged,
the courts must examine the nature, object, and scheme of
the legislation in its entirety and consider the areas over
which powers are delegated.
 Hamdard Dawakhana v. UOI
•
AIR 1960 SC554
The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable
advertisements) Act, 1954 enacted by parliament to
control advertisement of certain drugs.
• Section 3 laid down the list of diseases for which
advertisement was prohibited and authorised CG to
include any other diseases in that list. (DL)
• It was Challenged .
• SC held section 3 invalid because no criteria,
standards or principles had been laid down therein.
• the power delegated was unguided and
uncontrolled.
 Indian Alcoholic Beverage Companies v.
State of Bihar(Patna HC October 2016)
 Bihar Government Banned the distribution and consumption of Alcohol.
Section 19(4) of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915 as it originally stood, read as follows:
“Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing Sub-sections, the Local
Government may, by notification, prohibit the possession of any person or class
of persons, either in the Province of Bihar and Orissa or in any specified local
area, of any intoxicant , either absolutely, or subject to such conditions as it may
prescribe.”
Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016
On 31st March 2016, Section 19(4) was amended to read:
“Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act and the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), the State Government may
by notification, absolutely prohibit the manufacture, bottling, distribution, sale,
possession or consumption by any manufactory, bottling plant, license holder
or any person in the whole State of Bihar or in any specified local area in respect
of all or any of the intoxicant s either totally or subject to such conditions as it
may prescribe.”
 Notification: dated 5th April, 2016
• “The State Government hereby imposes ban on
wholesale or retail trade and consumption of foreign
liquor by any license holder or any person in the whole
of the State of Bihar with immediate effect.”
• The petitioners’ first prong of attack was that the
phrase “any person” under Section 19(4) of the Excise
Act did not contemplate “all persons”. therefore, the
Notification was ultra vires.
• This allowed the Court to hold that Section 19(4), in its
present form, amounted to impermissible delegation,
and was therefore void – along with the notification
issued under it.
•
 Control on DL
• Substantive Ultra Vires
• 1. Parent Act
Judicial unconstitutional
• Violating Express Limit
• Implied Limit

Contro
l on Legislative

DL

Procedural
 Judicial Control on DL
Substantive Ultra Vires
1. Parent Act unconstitutional
Violating Express Limit Constitution
Article 13, 245, 246
Chintamanrao V. State of MP (AIR 1951 SC118)
 Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Manufacture of
Bidis (Agricultural  Purposes) Act(LXIV of  1948), -PA
Section 3 & 4 of the impugned Act grants power to the Deputy
Commissioner has the power to prohibit the manufacture of bidis.
 No person is authorized to manufacture the bidis.
 Issue
Whether the total prohibition of carrying on the business of manufacture
of bidis within the agricultural season amounts to a reasonable restriction
on the fundamental rights mentioned in Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution?
 U/A 262 – Inter state water Dispute Act 1956 passed by the Parliaments
Cavery water disputes tribunal Case
Air 1992 SC 522
 Under Section 4 : Tribunal created to resolve disputes- Gave Judgement-
U/A 213 : The Karnataka Cauvery Basin irrigation, Protection ordinance1991 was
passed. Then became act.
“Entry 17 of state list” :Water, that is to say, water supplies, irrigation and canals,
drainage and embankments, water storage and water power subject to the
provisions of entry 56 of List I.
 According to this Act Karnataka Govt. authorised to retain as much as water they
want. Challenged ;
Legal issues
1) Whether the Ordinance and the provisions thereof are in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution;
(2) (i) Whether the Order of the Tribunal constitutes a report and a decision
within the meaning of Section 5(2) of the Act; and
(ii) Whether the Order of the Tribunal is required to be published by the Central
Government in order to make it effective;
(3) Whether the Water Disputes Tribunal constituted under the Act is competent
to grant any interim relief to the parties to the dispute.
 Article 262
• 262. Adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter
State rivers or river valleys
• (1) Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of
any dispute or complaint with respect to the use,
distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter
State river or river valley
• (2) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,
Parliament may by law provide that neither the Supreme
Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in
respect of any such dispute or complaint as is referred to
in clause ( 1 ) Co ordination between States
 Arguments of Karnataka
• Presumption of constitutional validity which
ordinarily attaches to a legislation, that the
onus lies heavily on the party challenging the
same to show that the impugned Ordinance
(now Act) is ultra vires the Constitution.
• Act falls within the competence of the State
legislature under Entry 17 List II, {words :
water supplies, irrigation and canals, drainage
and embankments, water storage and water
power}
Argument of Tamil Nadu
 SC Held,
• No. 1. The Karnataka Cauvery Basin Irrigation Protection Ordinance,
1991 passed by the Governor of Karnataka on 25th July, 1991 (now the
Act) is beyond the legislative competence of the State and is,
therefore, ultra vires the Constitution.
• Question No. 2. (i) The Order of the Tribunal dated June 25, 1991
constitutes report and decision within the meaning of Section 5(2) of
the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956;
• (ii) the said Order is, therefore, required to be published by the Central
Government in the official Gazette under Section 6 of the Act in order
to make it effective.
• Question No. 3. (i) A Water Disputes Tribunal constituted under the Act
is competent to grant any interim relief to the parties to the dispute
when a reference for such relief is made by the Central Government; 
Violating Implied Limit of Constitution
• Essential Legislative function can not be
delegated .
• ELF consist of determination of legislative
policy & guidelines regarding exercise of
delegated power by the delegate.
• delegation of ELF would amount to
abdication of the essential legislative
Function.
 2. DL is Ultra Vires to Constitution
• If the PA is Constitutional & DL is consistent with PA then how can DL will be
ultra vires to Constitution?
• This issue in Case Narendra Kumar v. UOI(Air1960sc430)
Non-ferrous metal control order was issued under section 3 of the Essential
Commodity Act.
Argument raised – if the enabling Act was not considered unconstitutional then
rules made there under could not be held to be unconstitutional.
SC held unconstitutional.
In Lakshman v. State of M.P., (1983) 3 SCC 275.
the Supreme Court struck down a notification issued under the M.P. Grazing Rules
made under the Forest Act, 1927.
The rules prescribed excessive and prohibitive rates of charges and a very limited
period for grazing of 'foreign cattle'.
Foreign cattle meant cattle of persons not resident of M.P. Normally such cattle
pass through several States. The Notification was held to be bad as being
violative of Articles 14, 19(l)(e), 19(l)(g) and Article 301 of the Constitution.
 3. DL is ultra Vires to Parent Act
• A. excess the power conferred by PA
• B. Conflict with the provision of PA
• C. When DL is conflict with the procedure prescribed by PA
A- ex.
Tahir Hussain v. District Board Air 1954 SC 630
Section 174(2)(1)of the United Provinces District Board Act X
of 1922 and as being an infringement of the fundamental
right of the petitioner under Article 19(1) (g) of the
Constitution.
AA authority was empowered by PA to make by-laws to
regulate the market.
AA make by-laws to prohibit the market.
 In Dwarkanath v. Municipal Corp. AIR 1971
SC 1844
• Section 23(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954,authorized the
Central Government to make rules for restricting the packing and labelling of any
article of food, with a view to preventing the public from being deceived or
misled as to quantity or quality of the article.
• Rule 32 framed there under by the Government provided that there would be
specified on every label name and business address of the manufacturer, as also
batch number or code number in Hindi or English.
• The appellant, the manufacturers of Mohan Ghee sold in tins labelled Mohan
Ghee Laboratories, Delhi challenged Rule 32 as beyond the power of the
Government conferred under Section 23(1) of the Act, 1954.
• They contended that the requirement of address under Rule 32 was in excess of
the power conferred, which was restricted to "quantity and quality" only.
Accepting the contention of the appellants,
• the Supreme Court held Rule 32 ultra vires the as it was beyond the power
conferred on the Government.
B. Conflict with the provision of PA
 Judicial Control on DL
• i) If the law is ex-facie unconstitutional it cannot be legalized by a Parent Act which is constitutional.
In other words, an unconstitutional legislation cannot be legalized by a valid Parent Act;
• ii) Rules farmed violating Parent Act are illegal;
• iii) Rules framed violating any other Statute or inconsistent with any other law are also illegal and
void;
• iv) Delegated legislation must be reasonable or do not suffer from unreasonableness.
• v) Delegated legislation shall not be arbitrary or suffer from arbitrariness. This is necessary to
protect the “rule of law”;
• vi) Delegated legislation made with malfides or improper motives are held illegal;
• vii) Forbidding sub-delegation and the powers being delegated or delegate exceeding the powers are
equally held void;
• viii) ‘Finality clauses’ in Statutes or rules made there under, exclusive evidence, clauses or ‘as if
enacted clauses’ were also reviewed on the basis of their compliance with the principles of natural
justice and also in the light of Art 226 and Art 32 of the constitution vesting powers in the High
Courts and Supreme Court respectively.
• Constitutionally vested jurisdiction cannot be taken away by ordinary legislation;
• ix) ‘Retrospective effect’ clauses giving effect to the law or rules with retrospective effect. Such
clauses not only reverses the reasonable anticipation of the people and may also deprive people of
their accrued rights;
• x) Delegated legislation exercised being against public standards or public morality.
• xi) Doctrines like ‘Proportionality’, legitimate expectations, and public accountability, have become
grounds of judicial review of the law and rules framed;
 Doctrine of proportionality
•  [Anuradha Bhasin Vs. Union of India 2019 SCC Online SC 1725],
• wherein, the validity of internet shutdown and movement restrictions in
J&K was challenged in the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
• It was held - To summarize the requirements of the doctrine of
proportionality which must be followed by the authorities before passing
any order intending on restricting fundamental rights of individuals.
• District Magistrates Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,
without outlining how these were related to the indefinite and complete
internet shutdown across all Kashmir districts, how many other similar
orders were passed, by whom, when or under what circumstances.
• Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public
Safety) Rules 2017.
 Exclusion of Judicial Review
• attempts are made to limit or exclude JR
• wording like “shall have effect as if enacted in
the Act”, “Shall be final”, “Shall be Conclusive”,
“shall not be called in question in any Court”,
“Shall not be challenged in any legal
proceedings whatsoever”
• there are ways to exclude JR
Finality Clauses
Finality/
Statutory
Finality
Clauses

No Provision for Order passed by

appeal, revision AA is made final
or reference by expressly
Against AO excluding
passed by AA jurisdiction of CC

In purported
Merely order,
statutory right Not followed PNJ
to file Appeal is ,no evidence
excluded
 Ex. Union of India v. Tarchand Gupta &
brothers Air 1971 Sc1558
• section 9 of Cpc, a civil suit may barred by the Statutory Provision.
• So section 170 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 read ,
“Jurisdiction of civil courts barred.—No civil court shall have
jurisdiction to question the legality of any action taken or of any
decision given by the returning officer or by any other person
appointed under this Act in connection with an election.
• correct opinion is that the Jurisdiction of Civil court may barred by
expressly or by necessary implication.
• but rules made there under if not complied with, or purported
order, Not followed PNJ, or decision based on NO evidence.
• cannot be said “under the Act”.
 Procedural Control
• Procedural ultra vires
• not compiling procedure prescribed by PA
• Mandatory • Compulsory

• Ante natal
Directory Publication
• Post Natal
• Consultation
 Harla v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1950 SC 467,
DB Raju v. HJ Kanthraj (1990)
• PA was silent as to the Publication.
• DL not published.
• SC held invalid on the ground of not
Publication
• Publication is necessary to make DL effective.
• It would be violation of PNJ to allow the
subject of a state to be penalised under the
law of which they had no knowledge.
1. Ante-natal or Previous Publication
• Is necessary or not depends on Parent Act
• if Mandatory provision in PA, non-publication DL will
Invalid.
• If directory then not render Invalid
• for Prior Publication s. 23 of General clauses
Act,1897 will Attract.
• section 23
• A) the rules in draft should be published in Gazette;
• B) the objection and Suggestion should be invited
• C) objection and Suggestion should be considered..
 2. Post natal publication
• After making DL – it has to published by the
Delegate – PA – before the execution of Dl
 Consultation
• Banawari lal v. State of Bihar Air 1961 SC 849
Central Gov. has to consult with Mining board
under the Mining Act.
Regulation were made without consult with MB
The consultation was mandatory.
 Legislative Control
Memorandum
• Before the
explaining It s Legislature
Proposal

• Dl framed by the
AA on the table of
Legislative Control Laying legislature
Procedure
• Depend on
Provision of PA

Committee • Lok sabha

s • Rajya Sabha
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS
The Constitution of India
Quasi- Judicial function
Administrative Tribunal

Judicial
Administrative
Legislative

Quasi- legislative function

Delegated Legislation
 Articles related to Subordinate Courts

Article No.  Subject Matter

Article 233 Appointment of district judges

Article 233A Validation of appointments of, and judgements,

etc., delivered by certain district judges

Article 234 Recruitment of persons other than district judges to

the judicial service
Article 235 Control over subordinate courts

Article 236 Interpretation

Article 237 Application of the provisions of this chapter to a

certain class or classes of Magistrates
Quasi- Judicial Function of Executive
• Executive empowered to exercise judicial function
• Judicial function means when any authority is in position
to decide the rights of the People
• This quasi-judicial function shall be backed by the Law
• Administrative Tribunal System
• whenever there will be tribunal there will be statute
• so also being called as statutory tribunal
• there is no precise definition of “tribunal”
• In AL it has been refer to adjudicatory bodies outside the
sphere of Ordinary Courts.
• This function is not given by directly from the Constitution.
• But they are different from executive and judicial
functioning.
 Durga Shanker Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh Air 1954 SC
520
• the word “tribunal” has been used under Art. 136 and 227 of the Constitution
but it has not defined.
• tribunal has special meaning , it is not same thing as court . It includes within
its ambit, all adjudicating bodies, provided they are constituted by the state
and vested judicial function.
• {Issue: Whether the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution override those of the Election Tribunal under Article 329(b) and
Sections 80 and 105 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
• even though the powers endowed with the Election Tribunal by the
Legislature are special, they don’t hinder the Supreme Courts power to grant
leave to special appeal as enshrined under Article 136.}
• Ex. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947
• The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) is constituted under the Income Tax
Act, 1961
• Section 252 in The Income- Tax Act, 1995.
• (1) The Central Government shall constitute an Appellate Tribunal consisting
of as many judicial and accountant members as it thinks fit to exercise the
powers and discharge the functions conferred on the Appellate Tribunal by
 Characteristics of Tribunal
• Statutory Origin
• vested with judicial powers of the state, distinguished from
Administrative functions, so they bound to act judicially, fairly.
• AT is not bound by the strict rules of procedure,
• followed procedure prescribed by statute / sometimes T are regulate its
own procedure. E.g. TAT ; Copyright board bound to follow procedure
prescribed under Copyright Act.
• they are bound to follow the procedure may be PNJ
• Proceedings of T, being called as judicial proceedings, enjoy the power
of civil court
• Decision of the Tribunals are judicial rather than Administrative
• They are independent
• power to give judgement or order
• required to sit in Public
• Tribunal possess some trappings of Court but not all
 Central Administrative Tribunal
• Through 42 amendment to the Constitution
1976
• Article 323-A- deal with Service Matter
• Article 323-B – deal with other matters
• While using this power Parliament passed
“Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985”with
objective adjudication of dispute & complaints
relating recruitment and conditions of service
– public Service
• CAT – CG is authorised to established –
 Legal Issues relating AT
1. Section 28 of this Act – excluded jurisdiction of all courts (including High Court )
• Section 28. Exclusion of jurisdiction of courts except the Supreme Court under
article 136 of the Constitution.—
• On and from the date from which any jurisdiction, powers and authority becomes
exercisable under this Act by a Tribunal in relation to recruitment and matters
concerning recruitment to any Service or post or service matters concerning
members of any Service or persons appointed to any Service or post,   
• [no court except—(a) the Supreme Court; or
• (b) any Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court or other authority constituted under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) or any other corresponding law for the
time being in force, shall have], or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers
or authority in relation to such recruitment or matters concerning such
recruitment or such service matters.

2. Article 323(2)(d) in The Constitution Of India 1949

• (d) exclude the jurisdiction of all courts, except the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court under Article 136, with respect to the disputes or complaints referred to in
clause ( 1 );
S. P. Sampath Kumar v. UOI AIR 1987 SC 386
• Issue
1. Whether vesting of exclusive jurisdiction in
such service matters in the Administrative
Tribunal to be constituted under the
impugend Act, subject to an exception in
favour of the jurisdiction of this Court
under Articles 32 and 136, is
unconstitutional and void ?
2. whether the exclusion of the jurisdiction
of the High Court under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution in service matters
 Answers
• Majority
•  The Tribunal has been contemplated as a
substitute and not as supplemental to the
High Court in the scheme of administration of
justice. To provide the Tribunal as an additional forum from where parties
could go to the High Court would certainly have been a retrograde step
considering the situation and circumstances to meet which the innovation has
.
been brought about

• Thus barring of the jurisdiction of the High

Court can indeed not be a valid ground of
attack.
 Minority
• J. Bhagwati
1. If this constitutional amendment were to permit a law to
exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 and
227 without sating up an effective alternative institutional
mechanism or arrangement for judicial review it would be
violative of the basic structure doctrine and hence outside the
constituent power of Parliament.
2. It must, therefore, be read as implicit in the amendment that
such a law to be constitutionally valid must not leave a void
but it must set up another equally effective alternative
authority and vest the power of judicial review in it.
L. Chandra Kumar v. UOI AIR 1997 SC 1125

• All the decisions of the tribunal would be

subject to scrutiny before Divisional bench of
High Court Under Art. 226 & 227.
• NO appeal can made directly to SC under Art.
136
• Article 323-A& B excluding jurisdiction of HC
& SC is unconstitutional.
• T can not act substitute to High Court /
supplimental
• their functions is only supplementary to HC
 Issue- Doctrine of Res-judicata applicable
for Decision of AT?
• What is Res-judicata
• Section 11 of CPC- if an issue had been the subject matter of
the previous suit and been raised, tried & decided by a
competent Court having jurisdiction to try the suit,
• then same issue cannot thereafter be raised , tried or decided
by any court between same parties in a subsequent suit.
• Constructive Res- Judicata- if the disputed subject matter are
so framed as to afford ground for final decision in the first suit,
then they are not to be disposed of by subsequent suit.
• Simple Sense constructive res judicata prohibits raising
issues which ought to be raised in the previous suit .
 The doctrine of res judicata is based on three maxims:

• 1. Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem

causa
•  no man should be punished twice for the
same cause
• 2. Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium
•  it is in the interest of the state that there
should be an end to a litigation
• 3. Res judicata pro veritate occipitur
•  a judicial decision must be accepted as
correct
 Answer
• General principles of RJ applies even in
Administrative adjudication.
• like award pronounced by Industrial Tribunal
operates RJ between same parties and
payment of wages Authority does not have
jurisdiction to entertain again same question.
• Labour court decided that a person was not a
“workman” within the meaning of IDA, 1947, it
operates as RJ in subsequent Proceedings.
 Next Issue- Whether AT is bound by the
Decision of SC & HC
• Article 141 of The Constitution
• whether law declared by HC has same
binding effect as Art. 141 ?
• law declared by the Highest Court in the
state is binding on authorities or tribunal
under its superintendence, and that they
cannot ignore it either in initiating a
proceeding or deciding on the rights involved
in such proceedings.- East India Commercial
Co. LTd. V. collector of custom (Air 1962SC
 Issue- whether contempt proceeding Applicable for Non-
compliance of decision of Tribunal ?
1. Art. 129 & 215 – given power to the SC & HC respectively, as a court of record
including power to punish contempt for itself.
2. Section 10 of Contempt's of Courts Act , 1971 empowers HC to exercise the same
jurisdiction, power & authority in respect of Contempt of Courts Subordinate to it as
it exercise in respect of contempt itself.
3. whether a “tribunal "can be said to be a “court" subordinate to the High Court.
4. In Brajnandan sinha v. Jyoti Narain (Air 1956 SC66)
Patna HC convicted B under CCA, 1952 hoding that the commissioner appointed under
the Public Servants Inquiries Act, 1850 was a “Court subordinate to the High Court”.
B went Sc – Commissioner Could not be said to be “Court”
Merely because orders were subject to supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.
Meaning of Subordinate to HC-
5. is in the hierarchy of Courts established for the purpose of administration of justice
throughout the union
6. Unless it has binding and authoritative Judgement
7. Commissioner is only fact finding authority, his report lack in finality & authoritative.
 Cases
• Thakur Jugal Kishor sinha v. Sitamarhi Central
Co. Bank 1967
• S. K. Sarkar v. Vinay Chandra Mishra 1981
• Alhar Coop Credit Service So. V. Sham Lal 1995
in this case Lobour Court whether in the
meaning of “Court subordinate to HC” was an
issue.
NO contempt proceeding would lie for non-
compliance of the award passed by the labour
court.
 Military Court / Tribunal
• Under Article 136(2) r/w Article 227(4) of the Constitution, the AFT is kept outside the
purview of judicial review by the higher judiciary by virtue of sections 30 and 31 of Armed
Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
• Union of India v. Major General Shri Kant Sharma (2015)
Court while interpreting sections 30 and 31 held that the High Courts have no power to
intervene in proceedings arising under the AFT Act, 2007
On March 11, 2015, a Supreme Court bench had held that AFT verdict could not be
challenged before HC and appeal against AFT order would lie to apex court only if , “point
of law of general public importance”
This order practically converted AFT as first & last court for military Litigants.

Union of India, v. Thomas Vaidyan M,

• the decision of this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Major General Shri Kant Sharma &
Anr. (Supra) may call for a revisit. It would be appropriate that this aspect considered by a
Three-Judge Bench.
 Balkrishna Ram Vs Union of India(2020)
Issue
whether an appeal against an order of a single judge of a High Court deciding a case
related to an Armed Forces personnel pending before the High Court is required to be
transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal or should be heard by the High Court.
(i) The power of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 is one of the
basic essential features of the Constitution and any legislation including the Armed
Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 cannot override or curtail jurisdiction of the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
(ii) The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and this Court under Article 32
though cannot be circumscribed by the provisions of any enactment, they will
certainly have due regard to the legislative intent evidenced by the provisions of the
Acts and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the Act.
(iii) When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ
petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.
(iv) The High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if
an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute
under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for
redressal of grievance.”
 Jurisdiction of Civil Court against the
•
decision of Administrative Tribunal
Dhulabhai v. State of MP (Air 1969 sc78)
• Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act (30 of 1950), s. 17-Jurisdiction of civil court, HC give
decision- suit is not maintainable.
• Issue – Suit to civil court is maintainable or not?
• Justice Hidayatullah summarised the Principles
1. Where statute gives finality to the orders of Tribunal then CC jurisdiction will be
excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally to
do in a suit.
2. but such provision of the Statute does not exclude the Jurisdiction of CC in those
cases where tribunal does not acted with Fundamental principles of Judicial
Procedure.
3. where there is express bar of Jurisdiction then Civil Court does not have
Jurisdiction. An examination of the scheme of particular Act to find the adequacy
of remedies provided may relevant but decision of CC not decisive.
4. Where there is no express exclusion of examination of the remedies enquiry of CC
may decisive.
5. challenge to the provision of A Particular Act as ultravires cannot be brought
before Tribunal constituted under that Act. Even the HC can not go into the
question on revision or reference from the decision of the Tribunal.
6. When a provision is declared
unconstitutional or the constitutionality of
any provision is challenged, then suit is open.
7. where the Particular Act contains no
machinery for refund of tax collected in
excess of constitutional limit or is illegally
collected, a suit lies.
8.
 ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS:
There are certain characteristics that are present in
administrative functions. They are:
An administrative order is mostly based on government
policies and regulations.
In administrative decisions, there is no strict rule to adopt a
judicial approach and the decisions depend on each case.
An administrative authority is not bound by legal evidence
as in the case of a judicial authority.
An administrative order will be considered as invalid if it is
unreasonable.
An administrative authority may use its discretion while
taking a decision.
 Principles of Natural Justice (PNJ)
 not embodied rules, not fixed in any code.
 Developed to secure justice and to prevent miscarriage of
justice.
 Fair play in action.
 earlier it was applicable to judicial function.
PNJ is not possible & practicable to define the parameters.
 it depend on facts and circumstances of each case,
Jurisdiction conferred on administrative authority, upon
the character of right of the person affected , Scheme and
policy of the statute.
 kinds
1. Rule against bias
Nemo judex in causa sua
 a) Pecuniary bias
 b) Personal Bias
c) Bias as to subject matter
Dr. Bonham Case (1610)
Jeejeeboy v. Asst. Collector (1965)
 Personal Bias
• Two test
• 1. likelihood of bias
• 2. Reasonable suspicious of bias
 likelihood of bias
 Metropolitan Properties Ltd. V. Lannon 1969
 Chairman of the Rent Assistant Committee
determined the fair rent of a flat at a figure below
than asked for ever by the tenant.(Rent Act 1965).
 Chairman was living in a flat of which father was
tenant and company was associated with landlord.
 The chairman advised his father to institute the
proceeding.
 So court quashed the decision on ground of personal
bias.
 Reasonable Suspicious of Bias
 Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand (Air 1957 SC425)
 a complaint alleging profesional misconduct was filed by
Prem chnad against manak lal, an advocate.
Bar council Tribunal was appointed to make inquiry into the
alleged misconduct. (Bar Council Act 1926)
The chairman of the tribunal had earlier represented Prem
Chand in a case. That the chairman did not had any idea,
remember that he appered on his behalf and there was no
real likelihood of bias.
 still disqualified the Chairman because Justice is not only be
done but must appear to have been done.
 Bias as to Subject- matter
• when adjudicator have general interest in
subject matter in dispute.
• A) Partiality of connection with the issue
State of Up v. Mohd Nooh
B) Departmental Bias
Gulapalli Nageshwara Rao v. APSRT Corp.
c) Prior utterances and prejudgement of issues
D) Acting under dictation
 Audi alteram partem – no one should be condemned without a fair
hearing.

Audi alteram partem – rule of fair hearing

The omnipotent doctrine mandates that no man be
condemned unheard.
 In administrative action this principle is applied to
ensure fair play and justice.
The rule of fair hearing is a code of procedure and
covers every stage of administrative adjudication –
beginning from notice to final determination.
 Rule of fair hearing contains within its ambit the
following rights:
 1. Right to notice
Derived from the Latin word notitia, which means
being known, notice is the starting of any hearing.
Unless a person knows the issues of the case in
which he is involved, he cannot defend himself.
For a notice to be adequate it must contain-
Time, place and nature of hearing
Legal authority under which hearing has to be
held
The specific charges, grounds and proposed
actions the accused has to meet.
 The Supreme Court laid down the following propositions:

• The adjudicating authority must be impartial and without

any interest or bias.
• The adjudicating authority, whether judicial or quasi
judicial cannot delegate or sub delegate its power (the
power to decide the case should not be delegated)
• The adjudicating authority must disclose all the material
placed before it and must give reasonable opportunity to
the affected interest to submit their case.
 2. Hearing
• Oral or personal hearing – how far necessary –
reasonable opportunity is essential – otherwise
invalid.
• The courts of India do not consider the right to oral
or personal hearing as part of (audi altrem partem. )
• depends on the facts of each case and ordinarily it
is the discretion of the tribunal.
• Technical and complex question are involved then it
becomes necessary.
 Requirements of Fair hearing
• 1. AA receives all the relevant material produced by the
individuals
• If the AA wrongly refused to received the evidence by the
party , against the fair hearing.
• Malik Ram v. State of Rajstan 1961
• Enquiry officer rejected to receive the request of the
petitioner for leading evidence.
• and ruled that that scope of the inquiry under section 68 D
of the MVA, 1939 was confined to hear the arguments only.
• AA is not under duty to receive all evidence – only relevant

• SC held authority wrongly refused – violation of PNJ.

 2. Disclosure of evidence or material which it
wishes to use against him.
Evidence is required to be taken in the presence of the
party concerned.
 however in some situations , rule is relaxed.
Hira Nath Mishra v. Rajendra Medical College (1973 sc
1260)
Some male student did indecent behaviour towards
some girl students.
Suresh Koshy v. Univrsity of Kerala 1969
Committee was appointed to enquire into the alleged
malpractice by a student, during examination.
 Non- furnishing the report of Committee.
 3. Opportunity to rebut the evidence
 Cross- Examination
Right to cross examination depend on
Provision of the statute.
 facts and circumstances of the case
 State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Bakshi Gulam
Mohd. (1967 )
Commission of enquiry into the charges of
corruption and maladministration against the ex-
chief minister of the state.
 Institutional Decision
One who decides must hear
The expression ‘one who decides must hear’ which is popular in common law
jurisdiction is known by the term ‘institutional or anonymous decisions’ in American
law.
Contrary to ordinary courts, many administrative proceedings are not the decision
of one man from inception to termination.
 More often than not, one person hears but the other person decides, this works
against the principle of fair hearing.
In Gullupalli Nageshwara Rao v. Apsrtc
is a case where an administrative action was challenged on the ground that the one
who decides did not hear.
 In this case, the petitioners challenged the order of the government confirming the
scheme of road nationalisation.
The Secretary of the Transport Department was the one leading the hearing but the
Chief Minister gave the final decision.
 The SC held that this divided responsibility was against the concept of fair hearing
because if one who decides does not hear the party, he gets no opportunity of
clearing doubts in his mind by reasoned arguments.
 Post decisional hearing
In Post Decisional Hearing, an individual is given an opportunity to be
heard after a tentative decision has been taken by the authorities.
 In certain situations, it is not feasible for the authorities to have a normal
pre-decisional hearing and decisions are being taken on first instance
before providing the individual to present his views, than it would be
consider reasonable if the authorities provide Post Decision Hearing as well
as it will be in compliance with the Principle of Natural Justice.
In Post Decision Hearing, the prominent point is that authorities must take
only a tentative decision and not a final decision without hearing the party
concerned.
Post-decisional hearing mechanism may be resorted to only when pre-
decisional hearing may not be possible and the only choice may be to have
either no hearing or a post-decisional hearing.
 Charan Lal Sahu v. UOI 1990
 SC held that where a statute does not in terms
exclude the rule of pre-decisional hearing,
contemplates a post decisional hearing amounting
to a full review of the original order on merits,
 it would be construed as excluding the rule of
audi altrem partem at the pre-decisional stage.
 if the statute is silent with regard to the giving of
a pre-decisional hearing ten the administrative
action after the post decisional hearing will be
valid.
Reason Decision ( Speaking order)
• Contains reason in support.
• the order speaks for itself or tells its own story.
• Why it requires
• 1. gives satisfaction to the person against whom the decision
has been given
• 2. gives to exercise right to appeal
• 3. authority will consider matter carefully and apply seriously
his mind to the facts and law.
• 4. understand the mind of the concerned authority
• 5. introduce clarity in order
• Tarachand v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi 1977
 Legitimate Expectation
• Legitimate Expectation means that a person may
have a reasonable expectation of being treated in a
certain way by administrative authorities owing to
some consistent practice in the past or an express
promise made by the concerned authority.
• According to this doctrine, a public authority can be
made accountable in lieu of a legitimate expectation.
• Thus, the doctrine of Legitimate Expectation pertains
to the relationship between an individual and a
public authority.
 LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION MAY ARISE:
if there is an express promise given by a
public authority; or
because of the existence of a regular
practice which the claimant can reasonably
expect to continue;
such an expectation must be reasonable.
 assurance from decision maker that they
will not withdrawn without giving him an
opportunity of hearing.
 State of Kerala vs. Madhavan Pillai1989
•  In this case the government had issued a sanction to the
respondents to open a new aided school and to upgrade the
existing ones.
• However, after 15 days, a direction was issued to keep the sanction
in abeyance.
• This action was challenged on the ground that the same violated
the principles of natural justice.
• The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the sanction order created
legitimate expectations in the respondents which was violated by
the second order as the same was without following the principles
of natural justice which is sufficient to vitiate the administrative
order.
 GNCT of Delhi v. Naresh Kumar 2010
 the Delhi High Court summarized the legal position with regard to legitimate
expectation as follows:
Firstly, mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen may not by itself be a
distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weightage to it may
render the decision arbitrary. 
Secondly, legitimate expectation may arise if (a) there is an express promise given by
a public authority; or (b) because of acceptance of a regular practice, a claimant can
reasonably expect it to continue; and (c) such expectation may be reasonable. 
Thirdly, for a legitimate expectation to arise, the decision of administrative authority
must affect the person by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which he had
in the past been permitted, by the decision maker, to enjoy and which he can
legitimately expect to be permitted to continue, until some rational grounds for
withdrawing it have been communicated to him.
Fourthly, if the authority proposes to defeat a person's legitimate expectation, it
should afford him an opportunity to make a representation in the matter. 
Fifthly, the doctrine of legitimate expectation permits the court to find out if the
change in policy which is the cause 
 Exclusion of PNJ
1. Exclusion by Statutory provision
Where Express Provision by necessary
implication excludes the application of
PNJ
Ex. Delhi Transport Coprporation v. D. T.
C. 1991
Validity of regulation 9 (b) Delhi road
transport authority
In Charan Lal Sahu vs UOI (1990)
 (Bhopal Gas Disaster case) is a classical examples of the application of this
exception.
 In this case the constitutional validity of the Bhopal Gas Disaster
(Processing of Claims) Act, 1985, which had authorized the Central
Government to represent all the victims in matters of compensation
award, had been challenged on the ground that because the Central
Government owned 22% share in the Union Carbide Company and as
such it was a joint tortfeasor and thus there was a conflict between the
interests of the government and the victims.
The court negative the contention and observed that even if the argument
was correct, the doctrine of necessity would be applicable to the situation
because if the government did not represent the whole class of gas victims
no other sovereign body could so represent and thus the principles of
natural justice were no attracted.
 2. By Constitutional Provision

Article 311(2)

• (a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on

the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal
charge; or
• (b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person
or to reduce him in rank ins satisfied that for some reason, to be
recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably
practicable to hold such inquiry; or
• (c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is
satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not
expedient to hold such inquiry
 Tulsi Ram Patel v. UOI 1985
• SC held that in these three conditions, there is no
need to hold any inquiry and give a reasonable
opportunity of hearing.
• even service rule cannot confer on the servant the
right of fair hearing in the aforesaid three condition
• A permanent auditor in the RAO was convicted under
S. 332 of the IPC causing head injury..
• Displinary authority under rule 19 (1) CCC, Rules 1965
without holding inquiry and giving opportunity of
being heard Article 311 (2)
Shivaji Armaji Sawant v. State of Maharashtra
(1986)
• The Appellant was a member of the Bombay police force.
• He along with some other members of the Bombay Police
Force indulged in instigating others to violence and mutiny,
joining rioting mobs and participating in arson, looting and
criminal acts.
• The appellant along with the other members had been
instigating others to indulge in acts of insubordination and
they were wilfully disobeying the orders of their superior
officers.
• the order of dismissal without inquiry and without giving
them reasonable opportunity of being heard was held valid
under clause (b) of Art. 311 (2).
 Exclusion in case of Legislative Act
 MRF ltd. Inspector, Kerala Government 1999

Exclusion in Public Interest

PNJ may paralyze the administrative process.

In Balco Employees’ Union Vs UOI(2002)

the Supreme Court was of the view that in taking of a policy decision in
economic matters at length, the principles of natural justice have no role to
play.
In this case, the employees had challenged the government’s policy
decision regarding disinvestment in public sector undertaking.
The court held that unless the policy decision to disinvest is capricious,
arbitrary, illegal or uninformed and is not contrary to law, the decision to
disinvest cannot be challenged on the ground of violation of the principles
of natural justice.
 Exception in case of Emergency
In Mohinder Singh Gill vs. CEC, (1978)
 whether notice and right to be heard must been given or not was
been laid down before the SC. In Firozhpur Constituency
Parliamentary Election counting was been going on where in some
segments counting were going on and in some it was over.
One candidate was having a very good lead but before the declaration
of the results, in a mob violence in some segments ballot papers and
boxes were been destroyed.
The ECI acting under Article 324, 329 without giving any notice or
hearing to the candidates cancelled the Election and ordered for fresh
Election.
The SC rejected the claim of notice and audi alteram partem and held
that in case of emergency, Audi Alteram Partem can be excluded.