1. Public interest petition regarding environmental pollution — Order for removal of livestock passed without notice to the affected party — Challenge to the order. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 893
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : Sujata V.Manohar
Iskcon
Versus
Nanigopal Ghosh
Case No. : 4529 , 4530 of 1998
Date of Decision : 8/28/98
An order passed in a public interest petition that adversely affects a party without providing them prior notice or an opportunity to be heard is vitiated for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:(A) Principles of Natural Justice - Order passed in public interest petition - Removal of livestock due to pollution - Order passed without notice to the affected party - Disposal of petition without hearing the party directly affected is vitiated for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice.
Facts of the case:
A direction was given to municipal authorities to remove cows and calves kept by the petitioner following allegations of pollution. The order was passed without notice to the petitioner. Subsequent applications for recall of the order and a writ petition seeking an injunction were dismissed.
Findings of Court:
The disposal of the public interest petition without noticing the persons directly affected is vitiated for non-compliance with the principle of natural justice.
Issues: Whether an order directing the removal of livestock, passed in a public interest petition without providing notice to the affected party, is legally sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principles of natural justice require that persons directly affected by an order must be given an opportunity to be heard. Failure to provide such notice vitiates the order, necessitating a redisposal of the matter after giving the affected parties an opportunity to put forth their grievances.
Result: Orders set aside and matters remitted for redisposal in accordance with law.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Disposal of a public interest petition without serving notice to the affected party is legally unsustainable and the resulting order should be vacated. (Para 2 )
3. Disposal of a public interest petition without noticing persons directly affected violates the principles of natural justice and vitiates the order. (Para 2 )
4. An order passed in a public interest petition without providing notice to the directly affected parties is vitiated for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. (Para 2 )
5. Orders set aside and matter remitted to the High Court for redisposal after providing notice to all affected parties and relevant regulatory boards. (Para 2 )
6. Whether an order passed in a public interest petition without notice to the affected party is valid?
No, the disposal of a public interest petition without noticing the persons directly affected is vitiated for non-compliance with the principle of natural justice. (Para 2 )
7. Who should be noticed before the final disposal of a public interest petition involving environmental hazards?
The court held that all persons directly affected by the order, as well as relevant regulatory bodies such as the Central Pollution Control Board, should be noticed. (Para 2 )
(1) SPECIAL leave granted.
(2) ON the application of some citizens alleging pollution, the Green Bench of the Calcutta High Court passed an order on 16-5-1997. By the said order a direction was given to Respondent 14 Municipal Authorities to remove all cows and calves which had been kept by the present petitioner, namely, Iskcon and the said order had been passed without even noticing Iskcon. On an application being filed for the recall of this order the High Court rejected the same by order dated 6-6-1997. Thereafter, Iskcon appears to have filed a writ petition seeking relief of injunction but that application was dismissed. We are not concerned with the said proceedings in the present petitions. Mr Ray appearing for the petitioners contends that without giving notice to Iskcon the Green Bench could not have disposed of the public interest petition by order dated 16-5-1997 and, therefore, the said order is liable to be vacated. There is no dispute that no notice of the proceeding had been served on Iskcon. Apart from Iskcon there are several other places within the municipality where cows are kept and they are required to be noticed before finally disposing of the public interest petition. The disposal of the public interest petition by order dated 16-5-1997 without noticing the persons directly affected, is vitiated for non-compliance with the principle of natural justice. We are not examining the merits of the rival contentions of the parties before us. Since we think that the proper course would be to remit the matters to the Calcutta High Court for redisposal of the public interest petition after giving opportunity to Iskcon to put forth its grievances as well as after noticing all other persons including the Central Pollution Control Board, who may be affected by the order of the Calcutta High Court which would be ultimately given. We, accordingly, set aside the orders dated 6-6-1997 and 16-5-1997 and remit the matters to the Calcutta High Court for redisposal of the same in accordance with law. We make it clear that any undertaking filed by the petitioner with regard to the liability of payment of maintenance charges will be considered by the Calcutta High Court while disposing of the matters finally and appropriate direction in that regard can be given. In view of the nature of allegations made in the public interest petitions, namely, environmental hazard on account of keeping of cows, it would be desirable if the matters are heard and disposed of at an early date.
