S. L. KAPOOR versus JAGMOHAN & ORS.

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 746 · Decided: 18-09-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 15 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

;746 
A 
B 
·i> 
E 
F 
G 
H 
S. L. KAPOOR 
v. 
JAGMOHAN & ORS. 
September 18, 1980 
(R. S. SARKARIA, 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND A. P. SEN, JJ.) 
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, Sec. 238(1)-Supersession of Municipal Com-
mittee ordered-allegations on which order passed-committee whether entitled 
to ofjer explanation-failure to observe principle of audi alteram par/em-whether 
·vitiates order. 
Administrative Law--Natural Justice-Hearing-opportunity whether to be 
a 'double opportunity'--one on factual allegation and another on proposed 
penalty. 
The Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 which is the law applicable to the 
·New Delhi Municipal Committee empowers by Section 238(1), the Delhi Admi-
nistration by a notification to supersede a Municipal Committee if in its view, 
the Municipal Committee is incompetent to perform or persistently makes 
default in the performance of, the duties imposed by the Act or under any 
other Act, or exceeds o:r abuses its powers. 
Exercising the powers under this section the Lt. Governor, Delhi, super-
seded the New Delhi Municipal Committee on the ground that it had made 
persistent default in the performance of the duties imposed on it under the 
law and had abused its powers resulting in wastage of municipal funds. Four 
grounds were enumerated in thio order of supersession. 
In their writ petition two non-official members of the superseded com-
mittee impugned the order of supersession contending that the order was passed 
in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and total di~regard 
of fair-play. 
The Full Bench of the High Court dismissing the writ petition 
held that although the Committ1:e should have been given an opportunity to 
state its case, since the Committee was aware of the allegations in 3 out of 
4 grounds, mere failure to observe principles of natural justice did not vitiate 
the order. 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellants 
that the Committee had no opportunity to offer their explanation in regard 
to the allegations on which the order of supersession was passed and failure 
..,. 
to observe principles of natural justice vitiated the order of supersession. 
On behalf of the Respondents, it was contended that : (1) Section 238(1) 
of the Punjab Municipal Act did not contemplate that an opportunity should 
be given to the Committee before an order of supersession »vas passed, (2) 
neither the Committee nor its members had any beneficial interest in the 
continuance of the Commit.tee and the supersession of the Committee did not 
S. L. KAPOOR V. JAGMOHAN 
' involve any civil consequences entitling it to a right to be hea.rd, (3) when 
· the question of the disqualification of any individual member was involved, 
'Section 16 of the Punjab Municipal Act expressly provided for an opportunity 
being given to the member concerned, whereas section 238(1) did not provide 
for such as opportunity and so by necessary implication the principle of 
<audi alteram partem was excluded, and (4) section 238(1) 
also contemplated 
-emergent situation where quick action might be necessary to avert a disaster 
iand in such a situation if th<l demands of natural justice were to be met, 
'the very object 
of the provisions would be frustrated. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : (1) The order dated February 27, 1980 of the Lt. Governor super-
'Seding the New Delhi Municipal Committee is vitiated by the failure to observe 
the principle of audi alteram partem. 
[767D] 
(2) (i) An administrative body may in a proper case, be bound to give a 
person who is affected by their decision an opportunity of making representa-
tion. It all depends on whether he has some right or interest, or some legiti-
.mate expectation, of which it would not be fair to deprive him. [754 C]. 
Schmidt and Anr. v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs, (1969) 2 Chancery 
Divn. 149 referred to. 
(ii) In 
its comprehensive connotation, everything that affects a citizen in 
'his civil life, inflicts a civil consequence. [753H] 
(iii) In the region of public law locus standi person aggrieved, right and 
interest have a broader import. [754B] 
Mo/tinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New 
Delhi & Ors. [1978] 2 SCR 272 @ 308, 309, referred to. 
(3) A Committee so soon as it is constituted at once assumes a certain 
-office and status, is endowed with certain tights and burdened with certain 
responsibilities, all of a nature commanding respectful regard from the public. 

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