BOARD OF HIGH SCHOOL & INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, U P., ALLAHABAD versus GHANSHYAM DAS GUPTA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 36 · Decided: 06-02-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1962 
36 
SUPRE:IIE COURT REPoRTS [l!l62] SUPP. 
BOARD OF HIGH SCHOOL & IN'l'ERl\IEDIATE 
EDOCA'l'ION, u. P., ALLAHABAD 
v. 
GHAXSHY AM DAS GUPTA AND 0 J'HEH8 
(S. K. DAs, A. K. SARKAR,. K. St:llBA ltAo, 
K. N. WA~uHoo and K. H..A.JAGOPALA AYYANGA.R, JJ.) 
Exci1nination Cou11nittce-Cancelling 1'xauiination re.<iult.'i-
.• Vo opportunity yit·en to c.ram.inecs of being l1e11rcl-;,,Yatural 
justice·if violated-Committee, if must act jut/icia/ly-U. P. 
Int.rmediatc Education Act 1921 (l;. P. 2 of 1921), s. 15--
lieguli;itions, Cit. VI,, .. 1(1).' 
~rhc three respondents were <lcclarc<l by the appcllaJtt 
to have passed the Intermediate cxan1ination. 
Thereafter 
they prosecuted further studies and subsequently the fathers 
and guardians of the respondents \vcre infnrnicd that the 
Exainination Cu1nmittcc of the Board had cancelled the 
examination results of the respondents and 1hal they \\'ere 
debarred from appearing at the 
next exan1inatio11. 
The 
respondents liled a ,,,rit petition 
in the High Court of 
Allahabad contending that since the Examination Con1mittei: 
had never afforded any opportunity to 
them tu rebut the 
allegations made against thern the Examination Committee 
had \'iolatcd the principles of natural justice. 
They also 
contended that the Cornn1ittee had violated the provisions of 
the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The appellan: 
while admitting that no opportunity had been afforded to the 
respondents to rcLut the allegations against thetn, contended 
that the Exan1ination Committee was onlv an administrative 
body acting merely administratively and ,it \\'as not bound to 
give a hearing to a party who n1ight be affected by its decision. 
The Single .Judge who heard the writ petition held that the 
Comrnittce was not bound to act judicially and there \vas no 
statutory obligation on tl:e Committee to give an opportunity 
to be heard. ·rhc respondent!! appealed to a J)ivision Bench 
and one of the .Judges of Bench held that even though 
the Cr1n1nittee was not Lound to a::t judicially or quasi-
judicially and it 'vas 
acting administrati\•cly it. ought to 
have givtn an opportuuily to the respondents of be111g heard. 
The other Judge \vas of the opinion that since the committee 
was acting only administratively it ,vas not boun.d to give 
a 
hearing. The matttr then went before a tlurcl Judge 
who held that even though 
the Committee 
was acting 
1nere)y adminis trtt tively the respondents \\'Crc entitl.ed to a 
hearing. The appellant thereupon appealed to this Court. 
The appellant contended that the Committee was only a body 1 
)a mg administrativrly and that the principles of natura 
-
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
37 
justice, including the maxim audi alteram partem apply only 
to judicial or quasi-judicial .bodies. The respondents conten-
ded that the High Court was wrong in holding that the 
Committee was only an administrative body. It was further 
submitted by them that the mere fact that there was nothing 
express in the Act or the Regulations framed thereunder 
which might make it obligatory for the Committee to call for 
an explanation and to hear the examinee whose case it was 
required to enquire . into was not wholly determinative of the 
question whether a duty is cast on the Committee in cases like 
this to act judicially. 
lJ eld, that the :nference whether the authority acting 
under a statute, where it is silent, has the duty to act judicially 
wHI depend on the express provisions of the statute read along 
with the nature of the rights affected, the manner of disposal 
provided, the objective criterion if any to be adopted, the 
effect of the decision on the persons affected and other indicia 
afforded by the statute. The mere fact that the Act in 
question or the relevant Regulations do not make it obligatory 
on the Committee to call for an explanation and to hear the 
cxamince is not conclusive on the question 
whether the 
Committee acts as a quasi-judicial body when exercising its 
powers und<r Ch. VJ, r. l(l), of the Regulations. It is obvious 
that the Committee when it proceeds to decide matters 
covered by r. l(l) will have to depend upon materials placed 
before it and before it decides to award any penalty it has to 
come to an objective determination on certain facts and this 
is the only manner in which it can carry out the duties impos-
ed on it. 
Even though there is no lis in the present case in 
the .sense that there are not two contending parties 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.