Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the appellant company's need for steel sheets to manufacture barrels. Under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956, the Iron and Steel Controller issued three release orders in October 1960 directing the sixth respondent (a stockist or importer) to supply a specified quantity at a specified rate. A disagreement ensued over the quantum and price, with the appellant claiming an excess payment of over Rs. 7 lakhs from earlier transactions. The Controller initially ordered the sixth respondent to supply the sheets after adjusting the excess, but warned that the allotment would be cancelled if the appellant failed to complete the transaction. Due to continuing differences, the appellant did not lift the goods and instead filed a suit in the High Court. The Controller then cancelled the allotment. The appellant subsequently filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation. The High Court passed a consent order directing the Controller to 'hear' the parties and decide whether the appellant was at fault for not lifting the goods. In the ensuing inquiry, the Controller refused to record oral evidence. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court. The central legal questions were whether the refusal to permit oral evidence violated principles of natural justice and what constituted an error apparent on the face of the award for certiorari. The judgment excerpt does not contain the final decision or the Court's detailed reasoning. The case is noted for its discussion on the procedural requirements of quasi-judicial inquiries under control orders and the scope of judicial review over administrative decisions.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice by Quasi-Judicial Authority - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956 - The case involved a dispute over the cancellation of a steel sheets allotment by the Controller. The High Court directed the Controller to hear the parties and determine if the appellant was at fault. The Controller subsequently conducted an inquiry but refused to permit oral evidence. The Supreme Court considered whether this refusal amounted to a violation of natural justice. Held (decision not provided in excerpt) (Paras Not mentioned). B) Administrative Law - Certiorari - Error Apparent on Face of Award - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The judgment examined the scope of judicial review over administrative orders and what constitutes an error apparent on the face of the award. Such an error must be self-evident and require no elaborate argument to establish. The Court likely clarified the extent to which certiorari could be invoked. Held (decision not provided in excerpt) (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
1. Whether the refusal by the Iron and Steel Controller to record oral evidence in a quasi-judicial inquiry into cancellation of an allotment of steel sheets violated the principles of natural justice. 2. What constitutes an error apparent on the face of the award justifying interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Law Points
- natural justice requires fair hearing including oral evidence when necessary
- error apparent on face of award is self-evident and does not require detailed examination
- controller's powers under Essential Commodities Act must be exercised fairly
