Back
1961 Supreme(AP) 35
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : CHANDRASEKHARA SASTRI, P.CHANDRA REDDY
Cherukuri Pirchiah, Advocate and Municipal Commissioner, Gudivada - Appellant
Versus
Andhra University, Waltair - Respondent
Decided On : 02-21-61
The principles of natural justice require that a person who is to be affected by a decision must be given an opportunity to state his case.
Headnote:
ELECTION - UNIVERSITY SENATE - APPEAL AGAINST RESULT - NOTICE TO SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE - NECESSITY - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - IMPLIED OBLIGATION TO GIVE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was declared elected to the senate of Andhra University in an election conducted by the District Collector. The unsuccessful candidate appealed to the Chancellor of the university, who set aside the election without issuing any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order of the Chancellor on the ground that it violated the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Chancellor's order was invalid because he had not given the petitioner an opportunity to be heard before making his decision. The court held that the principles of natural justice require that a person who is to be affected by a decision must be given an opportunity to state his case.
Issues: Whether the Chancellor of the university was required to give notice to the successful candidate in an election before deciding an appeal against the result of the election.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Chancellor was required to give notice to the successful candidate because the principles of natural justice require that a person who is to be affected by a decision must be given an opportunity to state his case. The court held that this obligation is implied even if the statute or regulations governing the appeal do not expressly require the Chancellor to give notice.
Final Decision: The court quashed the Chancellor's order and directed him to decide the dispute afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard.
( 1 ) THE order of the Chancellor of the Andhra University setting aside the election of the petitioner to the senate of that university is called in question in this petition.
( 2 ) IN January 1960, the District Collector, Kri-shna, conducted the election of one member to the senate from the local bodies constituency of that district, as requested by the university. In that election the petitioner secured 426 votes as against 424 polled by the third respondent. Consequently the petitioner was declared elected to the senate and the result of the election was Intimated to the university. It was notified in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette. The unsuccessful candidate preferred an appeal to the Chancellor of the university against the declaration of the result of the election complaining that some of the votes cast in his favour were improperly rejected by the Returning Officer. The Chancellor, being of the opinion that the grounds of invalidation of the votes were Improper, set aside the election of the petitioner and ordered a fresh election to be held. Before taking the final decision, the Chancellor had not issued any notice to the petitioner, the successful candidate in the election. It is this order of the Chancellor that is in issue in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
( 3 ) THE main challenge to the order is based on the non-issue of notice to the petitioner. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that any order passed by the Chancellor without notice to the affected person violates the principles of natural justice. It was incumbent upon the Chancellor to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to hear him before decision was given against him, continues the learned counsel.
( 4 ) THIS is countered by the learned Advocate-General appearing for the university by the argument that there are no principles of natural justice in abstract and that whether any rules of natural justice have been contravened or not is to be determined with reference to the statutory rules governing the disposal of appeals. Neither Section 27 of the Andhra University Act nor the regulations framed thereunder casts an obligation on the Chancellor to issue a notice to the successful party before taking the action coa-templated by that section, argues the learned Advocate-General.
( 5 ) AT this stage, it is convenient to look at the terras of Section 27. It reads:"save as otherwise provided, if any question arises whether a person has been duly elected or nominated or is entitled to be a member of any authority of the university, tie question shall be referred to the Chancellor whose decision shall be final. "
( 6 ) THE University Code (Vol. I at page 216) makes a provision for the mode in which this question is brought before the Chancellor by rule 4. That rule recites; "save as otherwise provided, if any question arises whether a person has been duly elected or nominated as or is entitled to be a member of any authority of the University, the question shall be referred to the Chancellor whose decision thereon shall be final. Any candidate at any election, intending to appeal to the Chancellor against any declaration made by the Vice Chancellor, or the person deputed by him to act in his place or any other Returning Officer, in respect of nominations, or the conduct of ballot or the declaration of the results, thereof, shall lodge his appeal with the Chancellor through the Vice-Chancellor within fifteen clear days after the date of such declaration to which he takes objection. Appeals received by the Chancellor after the period fixed shall not be considered. "
( 7 ) IT is thus seen that either the statute or the regulation does not enjoin upon the Chancellor to afford an opportunity to the successful candidate in the election to make his representations. At the same time, there is no rule excluding the issue of notice.
( 8 ) THEREFORE, the question for consideration is whether the absence of any
