Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Sandhawalia and Surinder Singh JJ.
Jathedar Jagdev Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Letter Patent Appeal No. 514 of 1980,
Decided On : JULY 15, 1981
The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Board) was suspended by the State Government under Section 3(8) of the Punjab State Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, without providing any show cause notice to the Board or its individual members. The appellants, members of the Board, challenged the suspension, arguing that the principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard, were violated. The High Court held that the suspension of the Board entailed civil consequences and attracted the principles of natural justice. The Court found that the provisions of the Act did not expressly exclude the application of natural justice principles and that the implied exclusion argued by the State Government was not clear. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in S.L. Kapoor V/s. Jagmohan, which held that the supersession of a nominated statutory body involves civil consequences and attracts the principles of natural justice. The Court also distinguished other case laws cited by the State Government, finding them distinguishable on the facts and legal principles involved. The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the suspension order, and granted consequential reliefs to the appellants, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Fact of the Case:
The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Board) was suspended by the State Government under Section 3(8) of the Punjab State Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, without providing any show cause notice to the Board or its individual members. The appellants, members of the Board, challenged the suspension, arguing that the principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard, were violated.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the suspension of the Board entailed civil consequences and attracted the principles of natural justice. The Court found that the provisions of the Act did not expressly exclude the application of natural justice principles and that the implied exclusion argued by the State Government was not clear. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in S.L. Kapoor V/s. Jagmohan, which held that the supersession of a nominated statutory body involves civil consequences and attracts the principles of natural justice. The Court also distinguished other case laws cited by the State Government, finding them distinguishable on the facts and legal principles involved.
Issues: Whether the principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard, were violated by the suspension of the Board without providing a show cause notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the suspension of the Board entailed civil consequences and attracted the principles of natural justice. The Court found that the provisions of the Act did not expressly exclude the application of natural justice principles and that the implied exclusion argued by the State Government was not clear. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in S.L. Kapoor V/s. Jagmohan, which held that the supersession of a nominated statutory body involves civil consequences and attracts the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the suspension order, and granted consequential reliefs to the appellants, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.
1. Whether the principle of audi alteram partem is attracted in the event of the suspension of the State Agricultural Marketing Board by the State Government under S.3(8) of the Punjab State Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, has come to be the spinal issue in this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent.
2. In exercise of the powers under Section 3(1) of the Punjab State Agrl. Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) the State Government constituted the Punjab Agricultural Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board ), consisting of the six appellants, that is, appellant No.1, Jathedar Jagdev Singh Khudian as the Chairman and the other five as non-official members thereof, besides six official members, through a notification dated May 12th, 1978. However, on March 18, 1980, this Board was suspended by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 3(8) of the Act by a notification in the following terms :-
"Whereas it has come to the notice of the Government of the State of Punjab that the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board ) has incurred financial expenditure without detailed examination of the implications involved, has neglected the duties imposed upon it under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 , and has failed to execute development work to any significant extent and, therefore, it is satisfied that the Board is not functioning properly; Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred upon him under sub-sec.(8) of Sec.3 of the Punjab Agrl. Produce Markets Act, 1961, the President of India is pleased to suspend the Board with immediate effect. 2. The President of India is further pleased to appoint Sardar Paramjit Singh, IAS Financial Commissioner, Development and Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Agricultural to exercise the functions of the Board and its Chairman till such time as a new Board is constituted." PARAMJIT SINGH Financial Commissioner Development and Secretary to Govt. Punjab, Agriculture and Forest Departments."
3. The present appellants preferred a writ petition impugning the aforesaid suspension primarily on the ground that no show cause notice whatsoever was given to the Board itself or to the petitioners individually before passing the order of suspension. This was alleged to be in flagrant violation of the well known principles of natural justice or the rule of audi alteram partem. Further it was the stand of the petitioner-appellants that there was no material with the State Government at the time of the passing of the impugned order for reaching any objective satisfaction about the non-functioning of the Board.
4. The petitioner-appellant s stand was controverted on behalf of the State Government by a firm stand that neither the Act itself nor the principles of natural justice call for any show cause notice to the Board or to the petitioners individually and further there was more than ample material before the respondent State to justify the passing of the order of suspension.
5. In an elaborate judgement the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that neither the provisions of the Act, (so far as these relate to the suspension of the board as such), envisage the issuance of any prior notice to the Board, nor the rules of natural justice or the principle of audi alteram partem is attracted to the facts of this case. He further held that in fact the applicability of such a role is excluded by necessary intendment by provisions of sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 3 and Sections 15 and 35 of the Act. On the factual aspect he took the view that there was adequate material on the record before the respondent State for recording its satisfaction which ultimately led to the passing of the order of suspension of the Board.
6. Now the very sheet-anchor of the learned counsel for the appellant s case is the recent judgement of their Lordships of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
