STATE OF ASSAM & ANR. versus GAUHATI MUNICIPAL BOARD

Citation: [1967] 2 S.C.R. 732 · Decided: 24-02-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF ASSAM & ANR. 
\'. 
GAUHATJ MUNICIPAL BOARD 
February 24, 196 7. 
[K. N. WANCHOO, R. S. BACHAWAT A1'1> V. BHARGAVA, JJ.) 
Auam Municipal Act (IS of 1957) s. 298-State Government Issuing 
1181/fication superseding Municipal Board for incompetence etc.-Notifica-
tlon after considering aplanotion to show cause notice-Whether oppor-
tunity for oral hearing also to be given-Whether principles of natural 
justice violated-Indication of tentative conclusion to supersede Board given 
In show cause notice-Whether amounted to pre-fudging before consider-
ing explanation. 
The appellant issued a notice to the respondent Municipal Board on 
Jun.o 9, 1964, under s, 298 of tho Assam Municipal Act (XV of 1957) 
which &tated, Inter alla that tho Slate Government was of opinion that tho 
Boord was mcompetcnt to perform its duties and it had como to tho 
tentative conclusion that the Board should bt. superseded. The charges 
which wero tho basis of the tenatativo conclusion woro set out in the notice 
and tho Board was asked to give an explanation in reply to these. 
Afler 
cooaiderinll the explanation given ny tho Board, tho State Government issued 
a notiftcallon on December 9, 1964, superseding the Board for one year 
with effoct from December 14, 1964 for reasons which were state<! in the 
notil!cation. 
Tho Board thereupon filed a writ petition challenging tho notlllcatioo 
on tho grounds, Inter a/la, ( i) that in passing tho order of supersession 
tho State Government bad violated the principles of natural justice inas-
much as tho proceedings resulting in aupersession being quasi-judicial 
proceeding., tho Board had been denied the opportunity of being per-
80Dally board and of producing evidence; (ii) that tho charges which 
woro found prm"Cd in the notification of December 9, 1964 were not the 
same which were the subject matter of the notice of June 9, 1964; nod 
(iii) that tho Slate Government bad already come to the conclusion that 
tho Board should be superseded when it gave notice on June 9, 1964 and 
had thus pro-judged tho issue even before tho exrlanation of the Board 
had been received. Tho High Court accepted al these contentions and 
allowed tho petition. 
On appeal to this C<>urt, 
HELD : allowing tho appeal : 
(i) Even assuming that the proceedings in question were quasi-judicial 
proceedings, there wu no violation of the principles of natural justice in 
this case. What tho section provides is that a notice should be given to 
tho Board by the State Government and ita explanation taken before an 
order under s. 298 is passed. 
When tho provtsioos of •. 298 are fully 
complied with, as in this case, and the Board does not ask for an oppor-
tunity for a personal hearing, principles of natural justice do not require 
that the State Government 1hould aslr. tho Board to appear for a personal 
hearing and to produce materials in support of tho explanation. [7~5 D-E; 
736 CJ 
(ii) A careful examination of the notice and the notification slfowed that 
tho charges found proved were substantially the same as the charges 
levelled. [736 Fl 
B 
c 
0 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
ASSAM v. MUNICIPAL BOARD (Wanchoo, /.) 
733 
(iii) The High Court had wrongly used the analogy of Art. 311 for 
lhe purp05e of s. 298 in holding that the appellant should not have indi-
cated its tentative conclusiQn in the notice because s. 298 provides for 
two courses I.e., supersession ar dissolution, and the appe)Jant could not 
decide between the two alternatives even tentatively iiefore taking into 
consideration the explanation of the Board. There was no reason why, 
when giving notice, the State Government should not indicate to the Board 
tentati\"ely which of the two alternatives it intends to Plll'SllC· 
Such 
tentative conclusion communicated to the Board does not mean that the 
State Government is not open to conviction at all and whatever the expla-
nation it would pass an order in accordance with its tentative conclusion. 
[737 B-0] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Aprea! No. J 268 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
May 21, 1965 of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Civil 
Rule No. 306 of 1964. 
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General and Naunit Lal, for the ap-
pellants. 
K. R. Chaudhuri and B. P. Singh, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Wancboo, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the 
judgment of the Assam High Court. The appellant is the Stat

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