Business Situat...

Direction: Read the following passage and answer the question.

Rule of natural justice are placed so high that it has been declared time and again by courts that “no human law is of any validity, if contrary to this”, and the court of law could discard an act of parliament if it is contrary to natural justice. Generally, no provision is found in any statute for the observance of the principle of natural justice by adjudicating authorities.

The question then arises, whether the adjudicating authorities are bound to follow these principles. Law is well settled on this point, courts have observed that even though there are no positive words in a statute or rules requiring that the parties shall be heard, yet the principles of natural justice will supply the omission of the legislature. In other words, if a statute or rule authorising interference with property, civil or fundamental rights was silent on the question of hearing and notice, the courts will apply the rules as it is “of universal application and founded on the plainest principle of natural justice”. Non-observance of principle will invalidate the exercise of power by any authority. Principles of natural justice are binding on all courts, judicial bodies, and quasi- judicial bodies. The question is -are they applicable to an administrative action? The earlier court took the view that it is inapplicable but as per lord denning “that heresy has been scotched”. Thus a statutory body irrespective of its nature or function has to act fairly and not in an arbitrary manner.

Principles of natural justice differ from situation to situation but certain basic premises remain the same. For instance, the accused should know the nature of the accusation made, he should be given an opportunity to state his case and the tribunal should act in good faith. Whenever a complaint is made to court regarding nonobservance of principles of natural justice, the court has to see whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just and fair decision as per the facts of the case. If it was necessary then the court will declare the decision ultra vires the power of authority.

Traditionally, there are 2 principles of natural justice.

(i) No man shall be a judge in his own cause, or no man can act as both at the one and the same time- a party or a suitor and also a judge, or a deciding authority must be impartial and without bias.

(ii) Hear the other side, or both the side must be heard, or no man should be condemned unheard, or that there must be fairness on the part of deciding authority.

The rule against bias simply means that justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Anything which tends or may be regarded as tending to cause such person to decide a case otherwise than on evidence must be held to be biased. Judge is supposed to be indifferent to the parties in controversy. He must be in a position to decide the matter objectively. He cannot allow his personal prejudice to go into decision-making. The object is not merely that scales be held even; it is also that they may not appear to be inclined. This rule also applies to administrative authorities required to act judicially.

Right to be heard simply means that a party is not to suffer in person or in a purse without an opportunity of being heard. In short, before an order is passed against any person, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to him. This maxim includes 2 elements- notice and hearing. Any action taken without notice is against the principle of natural justice and is void ab initio. The notice must be clear, specific, and unambiguous and charges should not be vague and uncertain. Moreover, notice must give a reasonable opportunity to comply with the requirement mentioned therein. Hearing simply means that no adverse action can be taken against any person without giving him an opportunity of being heard. It also means that adjudicating authority must disclose all evidence and material placed before it in the course of hearing proceedings and must afford an opportunity to the person against whom the evidence is to be used to rebut it. Another rule of hearing is “he who hears should decide” or “one who decides must hear”

Direction: Read the following passage and answer the question.

Rule of natural justice are placed so high that it has been declared time and again by courts that “no human law is of any validity, if contrary to this”, and the court of law could discard an act of parliament if it is contrary to natural justice. Generally, no provision is found in any statute for the observance of the principle of natural justice by adjudicating authorities.

The question then arises, whether the adjudicating authorities are bound to follow these principles. Law is well settled on this point, courts have observed that even though there are no positive words in a statute or rules requiring that the parties shall be heard, yet the principles of natural justice will supply the omission of the legislature. In other words, if a statute or rule authorising interference with property, civil or fundamental rights was silent on the question of hearing and notice, the courts will apply the rules as it is “of universal application and founded on the plainest principle of natural justice”. Non-observance of principle will invalidate the exercise of power by any authority. Principles of natural justice are binding on all courts, judicial bodies, and quasi- judicial bodies. The question is -are they applicable to an administrative action? The earlier court took the view that it is inapplicable but as per lord denning “that heresy has been scotched”. Thus a statutory body irrespective of its nature or function has to act fairly and not in an arbitrary manner.

Principles of natural justice differ from situation to situation but certain basic premises remain the same. For instance, the accused should know the nature of the accusation made, he should be given an opportunity to state his case and the tribunal should act in good faith. Whenever a complaint is made to court regarding nonobservance of principles of natural justice, the court has to see whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just and fair decision as per the facts of the case. If it was necessary then the court will declare the decision ultra vires the power of authority.

Traditionally, there are 2 principles of natural justice.

(i) No man shall be a judge in his own cause, or no man can act as both at the one and the same time- a party or a suitor and also a judge, or a deciding authority must be impartial and without bias.

(ii) Hear the other side, or both the side must be heard, or no man should be condemned unheard, or that there must be fairness on the part of deciding authority.

The rule against bias simply means that justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Anything which tends or may be regarded as tending to cause such person to decide a case otherwise than on evidence must be held to be biased. Judge is supposed to be indifferent to the parties in controversy. He must be in a position to decide the matter objectively. He cannot allow his personal prejudice to go into decision-making. The object is not merely that scales be held even; it is also that they may not appear to be inclined. This rule also applies to administrative authorities required to act judicially.

Right to be heard simply means that a party is not to suffer in person or in a purse without an opportunity of being heard. In short, before an order is passed against any person, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to him. This maxim includes 2 elements- notice and hearing. Any action taken without notice is against the principle of natural justice and is void ab initio. The notice must be clear, specific, and unambiguous and charges should not be vague and uncertain. Moreover, notice must give a reasonable opportunity to comply with the requirement mentioned therein. Hearing simply means that no adverse action can be taken against any person without giving him an opportunity of being heard. It also means that adjudicating authority must disclose all evidence and material placed before it in the course of hearing proceedings and must afford an opportunity to the person against whom the evidence is to be used to rebut it. Another rule of hearing is “he who hears should decide” or “one who decides must hear”

Direction: Read the following passage and answer the question.

Rule of natural justice are placed so high that it has been declared time and again by courts that “no human law is of any validity, if contrary to this”, and the court of law could discard an act of parliament if it is contrary to natural justice. Generally, no provision is found in any statute for the observance of the principle of natural justice by adjudicating authorities.

The question then arises, whether the adjudicating authorities are bound to follow these principles. Law is well settled on this point, courts have observed that even though there are no positive words in a statute or rules requiring that the parties shall be heard, yet the principles of natural justice will supply the omission of the legislature. In other words, if a statute or rule authorising interference with property, civil or fundamental rights was silent on the question of hearing and notice, the courts will apply the rules as it is “of universal application and founded on the plainest principle of natural justice”. Non-observance of principle will invalidate the exercise of power by any authority. Principles of natural justice are binding on all courts, judicial bodies, and quasi- judicial bodies. The question is -are they applicable to an administrative action? The earlier court took the view that it is inapplicable but as per lord denning “that heresy has been scotched”. Thus a statutory body irrespective of its nature or function has to act fairly and not in an arbitrary manner.

Principles of natural justice differ from situation to situation but certain basic premises remain the same. For instance, the accused should know the nature of the accusation made, he should be given an opportunity to state his case and the tribunal should act in good faith. Whenever a complaint is made to court regarding nonobservance of principles of natural justice, the court has to see whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just and fair decision as per the facts of the case. If it was necessary then the court will declare the decision ultra vires the power of authority.

Traditionally, there are 2 principles of natural justice.

(i) No man shall be a judge in his own cause, or no man can act as both at the one and the same time- a party or a suitor and also a judge, or a deciding authority must be impartial and without bias.

(ii) Hear the other side, or both the side must be heard, or no man should be condemned unheard, or that there must be fairness on the part of deciding authority.

The rule against bias simply means that justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Anything which tends or may be regarded as tending to cause such person to decide a case otherwise than on evidence must be held to be biased. Judge is supposed to be indifferent to the parties in controversy. He must be in a position to decide the matter objectively. He cannot allow his personal prejudice to go into decision-making. The object is not merely that scales be held even; it is also that they may not appear to be inclined. This rule also applies to administrative authorities required to act judicially.

Right to be heard simply means that a party is not to suffer in person or in a purse without an opportunity of being heard. In short, before an order is passed against any person, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to him. This maxim includes 2 elements- notice and hearing. Any action taken without notice is against the principle of natural justice and is void ab initio. The notice must be clear, specific, and unambiguous and charges should not be vague and uncertain. Moreover, notice must give a reasonable opportunity to comply with the requirement mentioned therein. Hearing simply means that no adverse action can be taken against any person without giving him an opportunity of being heard. It also means that adjudicating authority must disclose all evidence and material placed before it in the course of hearing proceedings and must afford an opportunity to the person against whom the evidence is to be used to rebut it. Another rule of hearing is “he who hears should decide” or “one who decides must hear”

Direction: Read the following passage and answer the question.

Rule of natural justice are placed so high that it has been declared time and again by courts that “no human law is of any validity, if contrary to this”, and the court of law could discard an act of parliament if it is contrary to natural justice. Generally, no provision is found in any statute for the observance of the principle of natural justice by adjudicating authorities.

The question then arises, whether the adjudicating authorities are bound to follow these principles. Law is well settled on this point, courts have observed that even though there are no positive words in a statute or rules requiring that the parties shall be heard, yet the principles of natural justice will supply the omission of the legislature. In other words, if a statute or rule authorising interference with property, civil or fundamental rights was silent on the question of hearing and notice, the courts will apply the rules as it is “of universal application and founded on the plainest principle of natural justice”. Non-observance of principle will invalidate the exercise of power by any authority. Principles of natural justice are binding on all courts, judicial bodies, and quasi- judicial bodies. The question is -are they applicable to an administrative action? The earlier court took the view that it is inapplicable but as per lord denning “that heresy has been scotched”. Thus a statutory body irrespective of its nature or function has to act fairly and not in an arbitrary manner.

Principles of natural justice differ from situation to situation but certain basic premises remain the same. For instance, the accused should know the nature of the accusation made, he should be given an opportunity to state his case and the tribunal should act in good faith. Whenever a complaint is made to court regarding nonobservance of principles of natural justice, the court has to see whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just and fair decision as per the facts of the case. If it was necessary then the court will declare the decision ultra vires the power of authority.

Traditionally, there are 2 principles of natural justice.

(i) No man shall be a judge in his own cause, or no man can act as both at the one and the same time- a party or a suitor and also a judge, or a deciding authority must be impartial and without bias.

(ii) Hear the other side, or both the side must be heard, or no man should be condemned unheard, or that there must be fairness on the part of deciding authority.

The rule against bias simply means that justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Anything which tends or may be regarded as tending to cause such person to decide a case otherwise than on evidence must be held to be biased. Judge is supposed to be indifferent to the parties in controversy. He must be in a position to decide the matter objectively. He cannot allow his personal prejudice to go into decision-making. The object is not merely that scales be held even; it is also that they may not appear to be inclined. This rule also applies to administrative authorities required to act judicially.

Right to be heard simply means that a party is not to suffer in person or in a purse without an opportunity of being heard. In short, before an order is passed against any person, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to him. This maxim includes 2 elements- notice and hearing. Any action taken without notice is against the principle of natural justice and is void ab initio. The notice must be clear, specific, and unambiguous and charges should not be vague and uncertain. Moreover, notice must give a reasonable opportunity to comply with the requirement mentioned therein. Hearing simply means that no adverse action can be taken against any person without giving him an opportunity of being heard. It also means that adjudicating authority must disclose all evidence and material placed before it in the course of hearing proceedings and must afford an opportunity to the person against whom the evidence is to be used to rebut it. Another rule of hearing is “he who hears should decide” or “one who decides must hear”

Direction: Read the following passage and answer the question.

Rule of natural justice are placed so high that it has been declared time and again by courts that “no human law is of any validity, if contrary to this”, and the court of law could discard an act of parliament if it is contrary to natural justice. Generally, no provision is found in any statute for the observance of the principle of natural justice by adjudicating authorities.

The question then arises, whether the adjudicating authorities are bound to follow these principles. Law is well settled on this point, courts have observed that even though there are no positive words in a statute or rules requiring that the parties shall be heard, yet the principles of natural justice will supply the omission of the legislature. In other words, if a statute or rule authorising interference with property, civil or fundamental rights was silent on the question of hearing and notice, the courts will apply the rules as it is “of universal application and founded on the plainest principle of natural justice”. Non-observance of principle will invalidate the exercise of power by any authority. Principles of natural justice are binding on all courts, judicial bodies, and quasi- judicial bodies. The question is -are they applicable to an administrative action? The earlier court took the view that it is inapplicable but as per lord denning “that heresy has been scotched”. Thus a statutory body irrespective of its nature or function has to act fairly and not in an arbitrary manner.

Principles of natural justice differ from situation to situation but certain basic premises remain the same. For instance, the accused should know the nature of the accusation made, he should be given an opportunity to state his case and the tribunal should act in good faith. Whenever a complaint is made to court regarding nonobservance of principles of natural justice, the court has to see whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just and fair decision as per the facts of the case. If it was necessary then the court will declare the decision ultra vires the power of authority.

Traditionally, there are 2 principles of natural justice.

(i) No man shall be a judge in his own cause, or no man can act as both at the one and the same time- a party or a suitor and also a judge, or a deciding authority must be impartial and without bias.

(ii) Hear the other side, or both the side must be heard, or no man should be condemned unheard, or that there must be fairness on the part of deciding authority.

The rule against bias simply means that justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Anything which tends or may be regarded as tending to cause such person to decide a case otherwise than on evidence must be held to be biased. Judge is supposed to be indifferent to the parties in controversy. He must be in a position to decide the matter objectively. He cannot allow his personal prejudice to go into decision-making. The object is not merely that scales be held even; it is also that they may not appear to be inclined. This rule also applies to administrative authorities required to act judicially.

Right to be heard simply means that a party is not to suffer in person or in a purse without an opportunity of being heard. In short, before an order is passed against any person, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to him. This maxim includes 2 elements- notice and hearing. Any action taken without notice is against the principle of natural justice and is void ab initio. The notice must be clear, specific, and unambiguous and charges should not be vague and uncertain. Moreover, notice must give a reasonable opportunity to comply with the requirement mentioned therein. Hearing simply means that no adverse action can be taken against any person without giving him an opportunity of being heard. It also means that adjudicating authority must disclose all evidence and material placed before it in the course of hearing proceedings and must afford an opportunity to the person against whom the evidence is to be used to rebut it. Another rule of hearing is “he who hears should decide” or “one who decides must hear”

Direction: Read the following passage and answer the question.

Rule of natural justice are placed so high that it has been declared time and again by courts that “no human law is of any validity, if contrary to this”, and the court of law could discard an act of parliament if it is contrary to natural justice. Generally, no provision is found in any statute for the observance of the principle of natural justice by adjudicating authorities.

The question then arises, whether the adjudicating authorities are bound to follow these principles. Law is well settled on this point, courts have observed that even though there are no positive words in a statute or rules requiring that the parties shall be heard, yet the principles of natural justice will supply the omission of the legislature. In other words, if a statute or rule authorising interference with property, civil or fundamental rights was silent on the question of hearing and notice, the courts will apply the rules as it is “of universal application and founded on the plainest principle of natural justice”. Non-observance of principle will invalidate the exercise of power by any authority. Principles of natural justice are binding on all courts, judicial bodies, and quasi- judicial bodies. The question is -are they applicable to an administrative action? The earlier court took the view that it is inapplicable but as per lord denning “that heresy has been scotched”. Thus a statutory body irrespective of its nature or function has to act fairly and not in an arbitrary manner.

Principles of natural justice differ from situation to situation but certain basic premises remain the same. For instance, the accused should know the nature of the accusation made, he should be given an opportunity to state his case and the tribunal should act in good faith. Whenever a complaint is made to court regarding nonobservance of principles of natural justice, the court has to see whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just and fair decision as per the facts of the case. If it was necessary then the court will declare the decision ultra vires the power of authority.

Traditionally, there are 2 principles of natural justice.

(i) No man shall be a judge in his own cause, or no man can act as both at the one and the same time- a party or a suitor and also a judge, or a deciding authority must be impartial and without bias.

(ii) Hear the other side, or both the side must be heard, or no man should be condemned unheard, or that there must be fairness on the part of deciding authority.

The rule against bias simply means that justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Anything which tends or may be regarded as tending to cause such person to decide a case otherwise than on evidence must be held to be biased. Judge is supposed to be indifferent to the parties in controversy. He must be in a position to decide the matter objectively. He cannot allow his personal prejudice to go into decision-making. The object is not merely that scales be held even; it is also that they may not appear to be inclined. This rule also applies to administrative authorities required to act judicially.

Right to be heard simply means that a party is not to suffer in person or in a purse without an opportunity of being heard. In short, before an order is passed against any person, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to him. This maxim includes 2 elements- notice and hearing. Any action taken without notice is against the principle of natural justice and is void ab initio. The notice must be clear, specific, and unambiguous and charges should not be vague and uncertain. Moreover, notice must give a reasonable opportunity to comply with the requirement mentioned therein. Hearing simply means that no adverse action can be taken against any person without giving him an opportunity of being heard. It also means that adjudicating authority must disclose all evidence and material placed before it in the course of hearing proceedings and must afford an opportunity to the person against whom the evidence is to be used to rebut it. Another rule of hearing is “he who hears should decide” or “one who decides must hear”