SCHEDULED CASTE AND WEAKER SECTION WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) AND ANR. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 1 S.C.R. 974 · Decided: 02-04-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI, M. FATHIMA BEEVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
SCHEDULED CASTE AND WEAKER SECTION WELFARE 
ASSOCIATION (REGD.) AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
APRIL 2, 1991 
[A.M. AHMADI AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.] 
Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973: 
Sections 3 (1) and 11 ( 1 )-Slum clearance area-DeclaratfDn of larger 
area-Subsequently changed-Smaller area re-declared-Whether 
opportunity of hearing to be given to affected parties-Denial of 
hearing-Whether violative of principles of natural justice-Whether 
Association representing slum dwellers' interests and a resident of slum 
area have locus standi to challenge the notification rescinding earlier 
notifications and redeclq.ring smaller area-Power .of rescinding-
Whether properly exercised. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226--General Clauses Act, 
1897: Sections 21/Karnataka (Mysore) General Clauses Act, 1899; 
Section 10: 
Under Section 3 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and 
Clearance) Act, 1973 Notification No. liMA 59 MCS 76 dated 17.1.1977 
E 
was issued by the State Government declaring an extent of one acre in 
......_ 
the city of Bangalore, as 'slum area'. After considering the objections, 
another notification dated 30.12.1977 was issued under Section 11(1) of 
the Act declaring the entire land as 'slum clearance area'. However, on 
January 20, 1981, the Government issued notification under Section 
3(1) cancelling the earlier notification dated 3.12.1977 andre-declaring 
F 
-an extent of 14 1/2 guntas only as 'slum area'. The appellants, an 
Association representing the interest of slum dwellers and a resident of 
the area challenged notification dated 20.1.1981 on the ground that it 
was in violation of the principle of natural justice and Article 14 of the __&/ 
Constitution inasmuch as the slum dwellers affected by the Govern-
ment's action were not given an opportunity of being heard and were 
G 
denied equality, since a major part of the slum area has been excluded 
from the operation of the scheme. 
A Single Judge of the High Court held that the. appellants hart-.( 
no locus standi to challenge the notification and that even on merits 
there was no case. The Division Bench agreed on the question of locus 
H 
standi but did not go into the merits. 
974 
l. 
---
..... 
; 
S.C. WELFARE ASSN. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
975 
~ 
The appellants filed an appeal by special leave before this Court, 
A 
contending that the High Court had erred in holding that ~he petitioners 
had no locus standi, that in vif~w of the purpose of the legislation and the 
scheme contemplated thereunder, once action had been taken declaring 
a larger area as 'slum cleara1nce area', any change thereafter which 
directly affected the slum dwellers could not be taken without giving the 
affected persons an opportunity of being beard and, there was, there-
B 
;.._ fore, clear violation of the principle of natural justice, and that there 
was no specific provision under the statute enabling the Government to 
rescind the notification, and even assuing that it existed there was no 
proper exercise of the power. 
3--
On behalf of Respondent: No. 3 it was submitted that there was 
no need to hear the owners or occupiers at the stage of issuing notifica-
c-
tion under Section 3(1) of the Act and Section 11 did not confer any 
~ statutory right on the occupit~rs, and that under Section 21 of the 
General Clauses Act, the power to withdraw or rescind the notification 
was inherent and the authority who was empowered to issue the notifi-
cation was entitled to rescind the same. The State adopted the con-
D 
tentions of Respondents No. 3. 
Allowing the appeal, this eourt, 
.. 
HELD: 1.1. Where a member of the public acting bona fide moves 
the Court for enforcement of a fundamental right on behalf of a person 
E 
or class of persons who, on accmnnt of poverty or· disability or socially or 
economically disadvantaged pm;ition cannot approach the Court for 
relief, such member of the public may move the Court even by just 
writing a letter. [979E] 
Bandhua Mukti .Morcha v. Union of India & Ors., [1984] 2 SCR 
F 
~ 
67, relied on. 
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, [1982] 2 SCR 365; Olga Tellis v. 
Bombay Municipal Corporation, [1985] Suppl. 2 SCR 51, referred to. 
1.2. The first appellant· Association represents the interests of the 
G 
\,.---slum dwellers and the second app,~llant himself is one of the residents in 
the area. The action of the Govenunent affects a class of persons and if 
that gro

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