9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Locus Standi of the appellants. 2. Government's power to rescind a notification under the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973. 3. Violation of the principle of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution. Detailed Analysis: 1. Locus Standi of the Appellants: The appellants challenged the High Court's decision on their locus standi to contest the notification issued by the Karnataka Government. The High Court had ruled that the appellants lacked locus standi and dismissed their case on these grounds. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, stating that the first appellant-Association represented the interests of the slum dwellers, and the second appellant was a resident of the area. The Court cited previous rulings, such as Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, to affirm that public interest litigation could be initiated by individuals or groups representing those who are socially or economically disadvantaged and unable to approach the Court themselves. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court was wrong in concluding that the appellants were incompetent to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. 2. Government's Power to Rescind a Notification: The appellants argued that the State Government had no power to rescind the notification issued under Sections 3 and 11 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973, in the absence of any specific provision in the Act. The Supreme Court referred to Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, which states that the power to issue a notification includes the power to rescind it. The Court cited several precedents, including State of Kerala v. K. G. Madhavan Pillai and Lt. Governor of H.P. v. Sri Avinash Sharma, to support the view that it is always open to the Government to rescind a notification. However, the Court emphasized that the exercise of this power must be in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as the original issuance of the notification. 3. Violation of the Principle of Natural Justice and Article 14: The appellants contended that the rescinding of the notification without giving the affected slum dwellers an opportunity to be heard was a violation of the principle of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that any action affecting the rights of individuals must be preceded by an opportunity for those affected to be heard. The Court cited Government of Mysore & Ors. v. J.V. Bhat and noted that the objectives of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973, which include improving living conditions for slum dwellers, must be considered. The Court held that the rescinding of the notification without hearing the affected parties was a clear violation of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned notification was quashed, and the Government was directed to proceed only after affording the slum dwellers an opportunity to be heard. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and quashed the impugned notification, emphasizing the need for adherence to the principles of natural justice and the proper exercise of statutory powers. The Court made no order as to costs.
|
