MANAGEMENT OF THEATRE SANJAYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have had the benefit of reading in draft the opinions of my learned Brothers Venkatachaliah, J. and Rama Jois, J. and in view of the disagreement between my learned Brothers, a third opinion has become necessary for indicating the reasons for agreeing with Rama Jois, J. and disagreeing with Venkatachaliah, J.

(2.) THERE is no material difference in the views of my learned brothers on the application of the rule of audi alteram partem to administrative decisions. Indeed Venkatachaliah, J. in Para of his opinion has opined that : 'To attract the rules of natural justice it is enough if the decision, administrative though it be, has civil consequences and affects rights, interests or even legitimate expectations. It is not necessary to show further that the authority was under a super added duty to act judicially also.' Having observed thus, according to me, the learned Judge has differed from Rama Jois, J. on the following grounds :

(3.) THE relevant facts and provisions of the Act bearing on the question referred to the Full Bench have been set out in detail and explained by Rama Jois, J. in his opinion and any reference to them herein would be only tautologous. So, I would straightaway proceed to issues in law on which my learned Brothers have differed. The emphasis laid on Avon (supra) by Venkatachaliah, J. for taking a different view impels me to treat as the first legal issue whether Avon (supra) laid down any law which answers the Questions referred to us for our opinion. Sitting single, I found that certain dicta of the Supreme Court in one context should not, in my considered view, cloud the ratio decided in ITI (supra) made in another context. That takes me to the question of ratio decided in Avon (supra). What cropped up for consideration in Avon (supra) was the power of the Government to make a reference after it had earlier rejected the supplication of the aggrieved party for referring the dispute to adjudication. The application of the wholesome rule audi alteram partem (in short the 'Rule') for such exercise of power after the initial refusal to refer the dispute did not arise for consideration. By the command of Art. 141 of the Constitution, Avon (supra) should be binding on this Court on the question before it, if the ratio decidendi of Avon (supra) applies to that question. Perhaps, some observations of the Division Bench in ITI (supra) as to the civil consequences of making a reference may not be valid as observed by Venkatachaliah, J. But that is not to say that the decision in ITI (supra) is inconsistent with the ruling in Avon (supra). The points raised in Avon (supra) and answered by the Supreme Court were as follows :