TMI Blog1969 (9) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner contends that his original application for the division of the property was revived, but the petitioner did not make any fresh application for the partition. The Regional Settlement Commissioner without issuing any notice to the petitioner ordered on 16-1-1962 for adjustment of part value of the property against compensation payable to respondent No. 4. The petitioner'a appeal against the order dated 16-1-1962 was disposed of by Shri Parshotam Sarup, Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner on 21-7-1962 as per annexure 'D' to the writ petition. He accepted the appeal, set aside the order dated 16-1-1962 and remanded the case with the direction that the question of divisibility and eligibility of the property qua parties may be determined after hearing them. The order after such hearing was passed by Shri A. L. Behl, Settlement Officer, with the powers of the Regional Settlement Commissioner, on 6-11-1962, as per annexure 'E' to the writ petition, holding that the property was not divisible. The revision of the petitioner to the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 24(1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 hereinafte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) The order of the Cheif Settlement Commissioner at annexure 'F', was challenged on the ground of an error of law patent on the face of the record, inasmuch as he held that no proceeding for partition was pending on 31-12-1960 in respect of the property in dispute, though such proceeding was, in fact, pending. The Chief Settlement Commissioner also did not give any reasons for his order. (C) The order of the Settlement Commissioenr with the delegated powers of the Regional Settlement Commissioner, was also wrong. He did not take into account the considered opinion expressed by Shri Parshotam Sarup after inspecting the house personally. 4. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3, viz., the Union of India, The Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Office did not defend the writ petition. Respondent No. 4, however, contests the writ petition and points out that the impugned orders were valied because the order of the Central Government was passed by an authorised officer and that it ws not necessary that it should have repeated the reasons given by the Chief Settlement Commissioner or that it should have been passed after giving an oral hearing to the petitioner. The order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ministrative authorities would be regarded as an exercise of the executive power of the Government, inasmuch as the authority exercising such powers are administrative authorities. The functions are quasi-judicial only in the sense that the rules of natural justice have to be followed before deciding the matter. The exercise of these functions by the Central Government is dealt by Artilces 53, 73 and 77 of the Constitution. Article 53(1) says that the executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through the officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution. Article 77(3) enabls the President to make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of India. These Rules are called the Transation of Business Rules. Under these Rules the business of the Government is authorised to be done by various officers on behalf of the Government. Unless a certain item of business is specified to be done by the Minister himself or by the Secretary himself, the rest of the business can be done by any of the officers of the usual hierarchy in the Minstry, starting at the bottom with the Under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment under the Rules of business and it was not necessary that he should have been either higher in status than the Chief Settlement Commissioner or that he should have been notified under Section 34(1). The first ground of attack on the order at annexure 'G' of the writ petition, therefore, fails. 8. Was the Central Government bouned to give an oral hearing to the petitioner in dealing with his application under Section 33? The answer to this question must be primarily sought in the provisions of the Act itself. Chapter Iv of the Act is entitled Appeal, revision and powers of the officers under the Act. Sections 22 and 23 deal with appeals to the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Section 24(1) deals with the ordinary power of revision of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Section 24(2) deals with the special power of the revision of the Chief Settlement Commissioenr in particular cases involving fraud or misrepresentation. Section 24(3) expressly states that no order which prejudicially affects any person shall be passed under Section 24 without giving such a person a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Section 24(4) provides that a person aggrieved by the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed under Section 33. For instance, it cannot be said that the order under Section 33 cannot be passed without complying with the provisions of Rule 105 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1965, inasmuch as Rule 105 does not apply to an order to be passed under Section 33 as will be shown later (b) The power given to the Chief Settlement Commissioner and to the Central Government under Section 24 is expressly called the power of revision. On the other hand, the power of the Central Government under Section 33 is called certain residuary powers and is not called a power of revision. There are sound reasons for this distinction. A full right of appeal on questions of law and fact having been given to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the power of revision to the Central Government was restricted only to the cases ofpayment of compensation obtained by fraud or misrepresentation under Section 24. These revisional remedies were thought to be sufficient inasmuch as the Act also provides for full hearing by the Officer passing the orders and also by the appellate Officers. The hearing provided to a party before the Officer passing the order and before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a residuary power which is hardly, if ever, exercised. It is not exercised as a matter of course. The power under Section 24 is exercised by a definite officer appointed under the Act but the power under Section 33 is just kept in reserve for the Central Government as a last resort if needed in any special case. It is exercised by an institution and not by any particular person. As the proceeding under Section 33 is neither an appeal nor a revision within the meaning of the Act and the Rules, Rule 105 does not apply to it and, therefore, an oral hearing could not be claimed by the petitioner under Section 33 by replying upon Rule 105. 10. It may be next considered whether apart from the provisions of the Act, natural justice required that an oral hearing must be given by the Central Government to an applicant under Section 33. In Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co., v. L. K. Bose , the Supreme Court observed in Paragraph (9) of the judgment that while considering the question of breach of principles of the natural justice, the Court should not proceed as if they are inflexible Rules of natural justice of universal application. The Court has to consider in each case whether in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... F. N. Roy v. Collector of Customs , the petitioner complained that he was not given a personal hearing in the appeal under Section 188 and in the revision under Section 191. The Supreme Court negatived the contention in paragraph (11) of the Judgment in the following words:- There is no rule of natural justice that at every stage a person is entitled to a personal hearing. 13. Right from the inception there has been a complete consensus of judicial decisions that a right to a personal hearing is not a necessary part of audi alteram partem rule. In Board of Education v. Rice 1911 Ac 179, the House of Lords held that the Board having followed the procedure indicated by the rules framed under the statute in question, there was no further obligation on the Board to hear the appellant either personally or through his representative or counsel because there was no indication in the statute to that effect. In Local Government Board v. Arlidge 1915 Ac 120, the procedure in the appeal was to be such as the Board might by rules determine. The House of Lords observed that what the procedure is to be in detail must depend on the nature of the Tribunal. The Minister is at the head of the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia Air 1906 Sc 671, Subba Rao, C. J., observed in paragraph (10) of the judgment as follows: As regards the second contention, I do not think that the appellant is entitled as of right to a personal hearing. It is no doubt a principle of natural justice that a quasi judicial tribunal cannot make any decision adverse to a party without giving him an effective opportunity of meeting any relevant allegations against him. Indeed, R. 55 of the Rules, quoted supra, recognises the said principal and states that no order shall be passed against any applicant unless he has been given an opportunity to make his representations against the comments, it any, received from the State Government or other authority. The said opportunity need not necessarily be by personal hearing. It can be by written representation. Whether the said opportunity should be by written representation or by personal hearing depends upon the facts of each case and ordinarily it is in the discretion of the tribunal. The facts of the present case disclose that a written represenation would effectively meet the requirements of the principle of natural justice. 15. A little reflection would show that it would be impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eard orally. The order passed by the Central government under Section 33 was not, therefore, in any way vitiated because it was passed without giving an oral hearing to the petitioner. 16. The order is not a self-contained one and does not itself give the reasons for the dismissal of the application of the petitioner . was it incumbent on the Central Government to give such reasons in the order itself? After an exhaustive review of the case law, the question has been answered in the negative by the Supreme Court in Bhagat Raja v. Union of India . The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in paragraph (9) of the judgment in that case was this. Where the State Government gives sufficient reasons for its order, the Central Government in affirming the said order may adopt the reasons given by the State Government without repeating them. But, where the reasons given by the State Government were scrappy and nebulous the Central Government must clarify them. Similarly, if the State Government gives reeasons some of which are good and some are not the Central Government should state which of them weighed with it in upholding the order of the State Government. In the present case, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
