M/S NAGARJUNA CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. versus GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 14 S.C.R. 859 · Decided: 20-10-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

'-f' 
[2008) 14 S.C.R. 859 
M/S NAGARJUNA CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. 
A 
v. 
GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1438 of 2004) 
OCTOBER 20, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Administrative law: 
B 
Principles of natural justice - Adherence to, by adminis-
trative authorities - Discussed. 
C 
Administrative action - Judicial review of - Held: Court 
cannot substitute its judgment for decision of administrative 
authorities - Court should intervene only when administrative 
action is unfair or unreasonable. 
Doctrines/Principles: Principle of natural justice - Gen-
eral rules - Discussed. 
Maxims: 
(i) 
audi alteram partem - Meaning of. 
(ii) 
nemo judex in causa sua - Meaning of. 
(iii) nemo debet esse judex in propria causa sua -
Meaning of. 
(iv) aliquis non debet esse judex in propria causa 
quia non potest esse judex at pars - Meanin'g of 
(v) 
nemo potest esse simul actor et judex- Meaning 
of 
(vi) qui aliquid statuerit parte inaudita alteram 
actquam licet dixerit, haud acquum facerit -
Meaning of 
859 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
860 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
instant appeals is whether State Government while exer-
~-
cising revisional jurisdiction, acted on certain materials 
collected behind the back of appellants and the reports 
submitted by certain authorities and thereby violated the 
B principles of natural°justice. 
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to State 
Government, the Court 
-l 
; 
HELD: 1. The basic principles of natural justice was 
c disregarded by the State Government while revising the 
order. It acted on materials which were not supplied to 
the appellants. Additionally, the High Court,. for the first 
time, made reference to the report/inspection notes which 
,I 
were not even referred to by the State Government while 
D 
exercising revisional power. The State Government has 
to re-consider the matter after supplying to the appellants 
copies of reports/inspection notes on which the Depart-
ment case rests. It should also consider the effect of the 
concession made by the Department in the earlier rounds 
'7--
of proceedings before the High Court. [Paras 30, 42] [875-
E 
F-G; 882-G] 
2.1. Natural justice is another name for common 
sense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified 
canons. But they are principles ingrained into the con-
F 
science of man. Justice is based substantially on natural 
ideals and human values. The administration of justice is 
to be freed from the narrow and restricted considerations 
which are usually associated with a formulated law involv-
~ 
ing linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. [Para 
33] [877-C-D] 
G 
2.2. The expressions "natural justice" and "legal· jus-
tice" do not present a water-tight classification. It is the 
-< 
substance of justice which is to be secured by both, and 
yvhenever legal justice fails to achieve this solemn pur-
H 
pose; natural justice is called in aid of legal justice. Natu-
ral justice relieves legal justice from unnecessary tech-
M/S NAGARJUNA CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v. 
861 
GOVT OF A. P. & ORS. 
,._,,..y-
nicality, grammatical pedantry or logical prevarication. It A 
supplies the omissions of a formulated law. [Para 34] [877-
E-F] 
2.3. The obligation to act fairly on the part of the ad-
ministrative authorities was evolved to ensure the rule of 
law and to prevent failure of justice. This doctrine is B 
complementary to the principles of natural justice which 
)-
the quasi-judicial authorities are bound to observe. It is 
true that the distinction between a quasi-judicial and the 
administrative action has become thin. Even so, the ex-
tent of judicial scrutiny/judicial review in the case of ad- c 
ministrative action cannot be larger than in the case of 
quasi-judicial action. If the High Court cannot sit as an 
Appellate Authority over the decisions and orders of 
quasi-judicial authorities, it follows equally that it cannot 
do so in the case of administrative authorities. In the mat-
D 
ter of administrative action, it is well known, more than 
one choice is available to the administrative authorities; 
~--r 
they have a certain amount of discretion available to them. 
They have "a right to choose between more than one 
possible course of action on which there is room for rea-
E 
sonable people to hold differing opinions as to which is 
to be preferred". The court cannot substitute its judgment 
for the 

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