Section 00
Tho Tri!:.?Ur..;'JI to navs powers o1 2 Civil Com"L.-Tlle Tribunal ~ ha:I for. the purpose of determining any matter referred to thom, have the same powers es are vested in a civil court under tho G-Ocle o , Civil Procedure , 1908 when tryi_ng "' suit , in respect of the "following matters, narn0iy---
00. Tho Tri!:.?Ur..;'JI to navs powers o1 2 Civil Com"L.-Tlle Tribunal ~ ha:I for. the purpose of determining any matter referred to thom, have the same powers es are vested in a civil court under tho G-Ocle o , Civil Procedure , 1908 when tryi_ng "' suit , in respect of the "following matters, narn0iy---
{a) summoning and enforcing the attendance ~ii any person and' C'{ -amir,ing him on .oath:
Co) requi;ing the discovery and production of documents ;
necessary . (c} administennq to any party to a proceeding before the Tribu;,ai such mterroqatcnes as . may , in· the opinion of tile Tribunai , be
Comments & case -law
[Even administrative actions are_ not out of the scope of prlnciples of natural [ustica- x' ' . Sephard vs . Union of India, 1988 (i) SU · 105 .
Admission made in pleading cannot be dissected . Unlike the ioslirr?ony of a witness , it may be accepted as a whole or not at all. Govemini; Oody vs . Padmanabha fJadhy, 1988 (2) SLJ ·j 80.
The strict standards applied io authorities exercisinq judicial power ::110 being increasingly applied to administrative bodice for it i:c; vital to i\-a mair-tenance or 'ho rule of law in a welfare State . The jurisdlctton 01
·~·
acmintstratlve bodies is increasing at a rapid nace. Therefor€. thr ms1rumenialilies of lhe State should discharge their function ill a talr and j·)st manner. Justice must not onl3 , bo done but must appear to bo Jone. i\/kire likoli:1ood of bias alfecting the Hecisions of Authority or Court is objectionebte. Manmoftan Lal Bhagat vs. State of Bihar. 1988 PL JR 12
11' there is a violation of the principles of natural justice, any order tl'::isseci thereafter becomes a nullity. No appeal or revision lies trorn an order w:1~~1: is a nunity. The detect ' caused by denial of opportunity of hearing can not , therefore be cured by the appellate or revisiona , authonty providing the opporiunity of hearing denied earlier. Gaenstiyem Pandit vs . Commissioner, r, 'lSB3 PLJR ·140 . '
Statutory tunctionanes under Municipal Acts must confine their jurisdiction within the four corners of the statute . Dumraon Properties and Enterprises (P) Ltd vs. State of Bihar, 1989 PLJR 32 .
In an application for conoonation of delay, them roust be some atternot to explain the cause for such delay. Union of India vs. Tete vodoqswc Ud. 1989 PL.JR (SC) 5.J
CH . t:;ai, i ... i jti,is1iction oif Civil Com1s . -Save a~ otherwise provided in this Act no suit shall '.:>e brought in any Civil Co11i{ to set aside or modify any order made L!nde·· this Act and no injunction shall ' be qrarxed by any Civil Court restraining the Au , hority or its officers or servants rrom C:oing any ect or exercising any power or perfOrf!li:,g any dutv purported to be done under this Ac~ 01 rules or regulations rram2d thereunder ,
Comments .n111«iJ ·case-lenrti'
[Decision of the Towr Planning Officer determining the amount of comosnsation in a case where the owner of the original plot is not provided with 61 plot in the Iinal scheme , is not appealable . ..,. i,e princip'e tor determining the compensatic-i is the same whether the displaced owner of and is given a ,econstiiu'ied plot . or not. Compensation is payable on the basis of market v2lL 1 e of the plot on the date of declaration of tl-Je intention to make a scheme . Perkesn Ami Chand Shah vs. Stace of Gujret, t, AIR ~ 981 SC 1597
There is no rule that even decision of every ortlcar undor a statute should be made appealable and if ii is not so made appealab'e . tho statuie sncutd be struck down. Unless the court finds that ;;i the absence of' f' provision an appeal '"' likely to make the whole procedure oppressive and arbi1ra , · y , the court does not condemn it as unconstitutlonal . Such a provision cannot be helc to confer uncanalised and arbitrary power on ·:he officer concerned and is· therefore not violative of Artlc.es · j 4 , · i 9 (1) (f) and 3·1 o. the Conetitution . Perkestt Amicnend.Snen vs . Staie of Guiret, (1985) 1 SCJ 106 ; /:\IR i986 SC 168 . {From Bombay Town Planning Act , 195~section 32) .
No writ ot mandamus can be issued orderinq reinstatement o . an employee to the pos: whore the appointment is a matter of contract and whera tile period for w'lich Hie appointment was made has alreac'.y expired . HowevAr the employee may be entitled to a declaration that the order of '!errnir.ation was illega: . F'. ,,. t'Vlukherfee vs. State of Biher, 'l 969 ~LJR 56A (SC)
I\Jlaii'er remanded to High Court by. the Supreme Court with direction
iff to . ' · L ---~~~~ nf th " nnc,c'lo7 Pl;::,n ;:ire affected
by any or all f1G ;lois allotted to any of ihe responr en , s in the wnt petition disputed questiorof lacl ancl axerciss of writ jurisdiction where Act oars JU risdiction of civil .ourts-in order to gel location of dispute« road ascertained afrosh by getting the physical situation clarified , HH High Court may give direction for cons ' ituUng a committee ot Iechnical Experts and for thA Implementation of th= recommendations of tho cornmiilee by the P. R. D A. forthwith. Smt. Krishne Singh vs. State of Bihar, ' 1886 PUR 1063 .
The Civil Court's Jurlsdiction to entertain a Civil suit is not ousted rn respect o: a dispute regarding the right and title or possession ot a parson on any piece of land with the Regional Development Authority for ihe · ec1son 'that the BRDA docs nm provide any remedy for adjudicating the right or title or possession of "' citizen over a disputed piece of land under Section 9·1 of the Act. Smt. Shsnd Devi vs . Ramchandra Ram , '1995 (1) All PLR 336.1995 (2) PL.JR 4.
In tho event of denial of Civil amenities or non -observance of statnorv duties resulting in denial or deprivation of the civic amenities and/a ~ oasic necessities of the , citizens, it will he open for the pub!ic spirited person or body of persons lo approach the High Court· for issuing necessary directior to the appropriate authority. and the Court may pass such . orders as !he situation may warrant Ram Kisnoro Prasad vs. Stsie of Biber. r. · , ggs (1 j PLJR 654 .
Even whore the Act provides an appellate forum against order of demolition or stoppage of unauthorised construction and bars remedy before CiVil Court, a suit questioning ~ he appellate order will be maintainable 011 · ground o'i' jurisdictional error. D. R . Chawla vs . Municipal Corporation of Defhi, (, (, 993) 3 sec 1s2. ·
Right of appeal . is always statutory. The right to notice in pro"ceedings in court of law or quasi-judicial proceedings are different· than tho righl of appeal. U. P Awas Fvem Vikash Parished vs . Gyan Devi, ('1995) 2 sec 326 . .I
CHAPTIER }{
REPEALS. SAVINGS P,ND DISSOLUTIOl\l