STOCK MARKET UPDATE

Ticker

6/recent/ticker-posts

SC enunciates: That an adjudicatory body cannot base its decision on evidence unless the party against whom it is being used has been informed and heard,

 Top 9 Law Firms in the World | Abhyaas LawPrep | Abhyaas Prep

The division Bench of Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha of the Apex Court in the case of Deepak Ananda Patil Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors held that an adjudicatory body cannot base its decision on any material unless the person against whom it is sought to be utilized has been apprised of it and allowed to respond to it.

Brief Facts:

The factual matrix of the case was that the Respondent is a cooperative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and the society is engaged in sugar production and has its by-laws. The Bye-laws 17-A prescribes the requirements for being a ‘producer member’ of the society. 

Thereafter, a complaint was filed by the Respondents (Original Complainants) invoking Section 11 of the Act. The said complaint was addressed to the Registrar for the removal of members on the ground that they didn’t fulfil the eligibility criteria. 


The writ petition was filed before the High Court and the High Court directed the Regional Joint Director to conclude the enquiry by 15 February 2020. Furthermore, the Regional Director forwarded a copy to all the members whose eligibility was sought to be disputed. The members contested the allegations and sought an opportunity to produce evidence. The Regional Director disqualified certain members and against this order, an appeal was preferred which also got dismissed.  Therefore, writ petitions were filed before the High Courts which were rejected by the Single Bench. Hence, the present petition. 


Contentions of the Appellants:

It was contended that there was absolutely no individual investigation into whether the members who were being sought out for disqualification met the requirements outlined in the bye-laws. It was submitted that principles of natural justice were violated. 

Contentions of the Respondent (Original Complainants):

 

It was contended that not even a single submission was raised regarding the lack of enquiry before the High Court. It was submitted that it would not be open to the Appellants to assert any other submission and if they are aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the correct remedy would be in the form of a review. 

Observations of the Court:

It was opined that it is a well-established principle of administrative law that an adjudicatory body cannot base its decision on any material unless the person against whom it is sought to be utilized has been apprised of it and allowed to respond to it. 


It was noted that the absence of specific allegations on grounds of ineligibility and the same not being disclosed would prejudice the Appellants. No order from the Regional Director or the Appellate Authority dealt with the eligibility of each member. Thus, the same constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. 

The decision of the Court:

The Hon’ble Apex court held that it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the High Court and to restore the proceedings to the Regional Joint Director. It was remarked that the consequence of ousting such a large group of members from the membership of a cooperative society would result in a serious miscarriage of justice unless individual facts are considered in each case. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. 


Coram: Hon’ble Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Case No: Civil Appeal Nos 88-89 of 2023

 Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 40 SC

Advocates for the Appellant: Advs. Mr Maninder Singh and Mr Neeraj Kishan Kaul

Advocate for the Original Complainant: Adv. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi

 

Advocate for the State of MaharashtraMr. Tushar Mehta (Solicitor General of India)

 

 

Social media is bold. 

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!   

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure .

Post a Comment

0 Comments

Custom Real-Time Chart Widget

'; (function() { var dsq = document.createElement('script'); dsq.type = 'text/javascript'; dsq.async = true; dsq.src = '//' + disqus_shortname + '.disqus.com/embed.js'; (document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0] || document.getElementsByTagName('body')[0]).appendChild(dsq); })();

market stocks NSC