2013 Supreme(Bom) 1008

In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.
Dr. Shailaja D/o Bhujangrao Wadikar
Versus
The Hon'ble Chancellor & Others
Writ Petition No.9639 of 2012
Decided on : 10-06-2013

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Applicability of principles of natural justice.

       Principles of natural justice hold good irrespective of whether power conferred on statutory body, is administrative or quasi-judicial. - In the present case the aim of both a quasi -judicial function as well as administrative function is to arrive at a just decision. The principles of natural justice hold good irrespective of whether the power conferred on a statutory body, tribunal or an authority is administrative or quasi -judicial. The idea of natural justice is fair-play in action. It has to apply to both quasi -judicial and administrative function and from that point of view the distinction between the two loses its significance.

       Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 - Section 76(7) - Order of Chancellor under.

       Chancellor, while passing order under Section 76(7) of Act, must record reasons for order. - The rule requiring recording of reason must be observed in letter and spirit. Mere pretense of compliance by vaguend general words is not enough. Though reasons need not be elaborate and extensive, all the same, they must be clear, explicit and intelligible. Reasons are the life line of any order. The order should reflect the application of mind of the authority while passing the said order and it is the reasons which would depict the same.

       The Courts insist upon disclosure of reasons in support of the order on three grounds :

       (i) The party aggrieved has an opportunity to demonstrate before the Court that the reasons which persuaded the authority to reject his case were erroneous.

       (ii) The obligation to record reasons operates as deterrent against the possible arbitrary action.

       (iii) It gives satisfaction to the party against whom the order is made.

       Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 - Section 76(7) - Order of Chancellor under.

       Order of Chancellor, rejecting representation of petitioner for appointment to post of Associate Professor, without giving him opportunity of hearing and recording reasons, unjustified. - Section 76 of Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, does not speak about affording opportunity of personal hearing. The provision speaks about calling for an explanation from the parties. It is no doubt a principle of natural justice that an authority cannot make any decision adverse to a party without giving him an effective opportunity of meeting any relevant allegations against him.

       The opportunity to meet out the averments, comments and the report submitted by the Vice-Chancellor can be by written representation also. Whether the said opportunity should be by a written representation or by personal hearing depends upon the facts of each case.

       The principles of natural justice would be satisfied if after the report and clarification is received by the Chancellor, opportunity is given to the petitioner to put forth his case by written explanation to the said report and the clarifications received by the Chancellor. To that extent the principles of natural justice are required to be adhered to. Personal hearing to the petitioner would not be necessary nor is contemplated under the said provision. However, in the present case, the opportunity to give explanation to the report/clarification and the documents is not extended to the petitioner. On this count, the order of the Chancellor impugned cannot be sustained. [(2004) 8 SCC 653 - Rel.on.]

       Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 - Section 76(7) - Term "direct" and "Order".

       Term "direct" as used in Section 76(7) of Act is in nature of "Order". - In a case an order is more general term which would embrace within its fold the words direction or direct. To direct may mean an order issued to a particular individual or a precept which is to be followed.

       It may be a specific or a general order. Direction is in the nature of command. An "Order" as per Black Law Dictionary is defined as a mandate, precept, a command or direction authoritatively given. As such it is no gainsay that the phraseology used in the provision is direction and not "Order". The same would not make any difference. Moreover, sub-section (8) of Section 76 further clarifies that direction given by Chancellor is in the nature of order.

       It states that an "Order" made by the Chancellor under the past preceding sub- section shall be final. In light of the same, Court has no hesitation to hold that the term "direct" as appearing in Section 76(7) is in the nature of "order".