Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Susme Builders Private Limited, a developer, was selected by the respondent Co-operative Society in 1986 for redevelopment of its property under a slum rehabilitation scheme. In June 2011, the Society complained to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) that the developer had completed only a fraction of the work in 26 years. The CEO permitted the Society to remove the developer. The developer appealed to the High Power Committee, which included the CEO as a member. The Committee rejected the appeal on 18 June 2012. The developer challenged both orders by way of a writ petition. The High Court restricted its judgment to the issue of bias: whether the participation of the CEO in the appellate committee vitiated the proceedings. The court noted that the CEO had passed the initial removal order and then sat as a member of the committee hearing the appeal against that order. The court held that this violated the principle of natural justice that no person shall be a judge in his own cause. Even if the CEO was not the sole decision-maker, his presence created a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court quashed both the CEO's order and the High Power Committee's order, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a properly constituted committee without the CEO. The court did not decide other issues raised by the parties.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Bias - Nemo judex in causa sua - Participation of CEO in High Power Committee hearing appeal against his own order - The CEO passed the initial order removing the developer and then sat as a member of the appellate committee which upheld that order - Held that such participation vitiates the appeal proceedings as it violates the principle that no person shall be a judge in his own cause (Paras 3, 10-12). B) Slum Rehabilitation - Developer Removal - Appellate Mechanism - Slum Rehabilitation Authority Regulations - The High Power Committee included the CEO whose order was under challenge - The presence of the CEO as a member of the appellate body, even if not the sole decision-maker, creates a reasonable apprehension of bias - Held that the appeal proceedings are invalid and the impugned orders are quashed (Paras 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the participation of the CEO, Shri S.S. Zhende, in the High Power Committee deciding the appeal arising from his own decision has vitiated the appeal proceedings.
Final Decision
The court quashed the order of the CEO dated 18 June 2012 and the order of the High Power Committee dated 18 June 2012, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a properly constituted High Power Committee without the participation of the CEO.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Nemo judex in causa sua
- Bias
- Appellate authority composition
- Slum Rehabilitation Authority regulations
