Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2023, Administrative Law

A notification which is not in compliance with clause (1) of Article 77 is not invalid, unconstitutional or non-est for that reason alone. Rather, the irrebuttable presumption that the notification was issued by the President of India (acting for the Union Government) is no longer available to the Union Government. The notification continues to be valid and it is open to the Union Government to prove that the order was indeed issued by the appropriate authority. (Para 101) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216 : 2023 INSC 271Administrative Law - MD, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar - in order to set aside the order of punishment, the aggrieved person must be able prove that prejudice has been caused to him due to non-disclosure- to prove prejudice, he must prove that had the material been disclosed to him the outcome or the punishment would have been different. [Para 19] Deepal Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 30 : AIR 2023 SC 533 : 2023 INSC 11Administrative Law - Principles of - MP Jain and SN Jain’s treatise - If without disclosing any evidence to the party, the authority takes it into its consideration, and decides the matter against the party, then the decision is vitiated for it amounts to denial of a real and effective opportunity to the party to meet the case against him - the principle can be seen operating in several judicial pronouncements where non-disclosure of materials to the affected party has been held fatal to the validity of the hearing proceedings. [Para 17] Deepal Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 30 : AIR 2023 SC 533 : 2023 INSC 11Administrative Law - T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India - A quasi-judicial authority has a duty to disclose the material that has been relied upon at the stage of adjudication - the actual test is whether the material that is required to be disclosed is relevant for purpose of adjudication - if it is, then the principles of natural justice require its due disclosure. [Para 18] Deepal Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 30 : AIR 2023 SC 533 : 2023 INSC 11Administrative Law – Well established principle of - An adjudicatory body cannot base its decision on any material unless the person against whom it is sought to be utilised has been apprised of it and given an opportunity to respond to it. [Para 17] Deepak Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 30 : AIR 2023 SC 533 : 2023 INSC 11Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 - The relevant State Government has the implied power to issue a request to abolish the SAT in its state to the Union Government. The Union Government in turn has the implied power to rescind the notification by which that SAT was established, thereby abolishing the SAT. (Para 59) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216 : 2023 INSC 271Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - The Union Government did not become functus officio after establishing the Odisha Administrative Tribunal because the doctrine cannot ordinarily be applied in cases where the government is formulating and implementing a policy. (Para 128 (f)) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216 : 2023 INSC 271Article 323A does not preclude the Union Government from abolishing SATs. (Para 32) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216 : 2023 INSC 271Decision will be vitiated if materials are not disclosed to the affected party. Deepal Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 30 : AIR 2023 SC 533 : 2023 INSC 11Fundamental right of Access to Justice - Abolition of OAT does not violate right of access to justice as cases will be heard by High Court - The fundamental right of access to justice is no doubt a crucial and indispensable right under the Constitution of India. However, it cannot be interpreted to mean that every village, town, or city must house every forum of adjudication created by statute or the Constitution. (Para 112) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216 : 2023 INSC 271Notification Issued by Central Govt not invalid merely because it's not issued in the President's name. Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216 : 2023 INSC 271Rules of Business - When the Cabinet constitutes a committee and the latter’s actions are validated by the Minister and the rest of the Council, then it cannot be claimed that Rules of Business have not been followed by the State Government in the course of its decision-making process. (Para 90) Bishambhar Prasad v. Arfat Petrochemicals, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 337 : 2023 INSC 406Supreme Court praises Orissa High Court for creatively using technology; Says other HCs should replicate it. Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216 :...

Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2023, Administrative Law

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags