Supreme Court of India

COMMISSIONER, SALEM MUNICIPALITYversusT. KURALMANI AND ANR.

Citation: 1995 INSC 648
Decided: 30 October 1995
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYB L HANSARIA

Holding

The Tribunal was not justified in summarily disposing of the matter; its order was set aside and the case remitted for fresh disposal.

Summary

The Commissioner of Salem Municipality appealed to the Supreme Court against an order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal that had summarily disposed of the matter without hearing the rival contentions. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in such summary disposal, as the competing claims required consideration. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and remitted the case back to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal in accordance with the relevant government order and procedural rules. No opinion on the merits of the dispute was expressed. The appeal was allowed and no costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was justified in summarily disposing of the appeal without considering the rival contentions.
Whether the summary disposal violated principles of natural justice and warranted judicial intervention.
Whether the Supreme Court could set aside the Tribunal’s order and remit the matter for fresh disposal.

Subjects

Administrative lawSummary disposalTribunal jurisdictionNatural justiceJudicial reviewSpecial leave petitionRemand

Judgment

               COMMISSIONER, SALEM MUNICIPALITY                                 A
                               v.
                   T. KURALMANI AND ANR.

                            OCTOBER 30, 1995

             [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, J.1.)                             B

        Practice and Procedure :

        Administrative Tiibzmal-Swnmary di;posal-He/d, Tiibzmal was not
justified in summa1ily disposing of the matter without conside1ing 1iva/ con-
tentions deserving consideration.
                                                                                c
      The appellant filed the appeal by special leave against the order of
the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal disposing the matter summarily.

      Allowing the appeal ·and remitting the matter to the Tribunal for         D
disposal, this. Court

      HELD: 1.1. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, was not justified
in summarily disposing of the matter without considering the rival con·
tentions which in the background of the facts of this case, ought to be gone
into. [564-A]                                                                   E
      1.2. The Tribunal is free to consider the entire controversy in the
light of :he Government order and pass appropriate orders according to
Rules. [564-B)

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9879 of                 F
1995.

     Prom the Judgment and Order dated 10.1.95/24.2.95 of the Tamil
Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A. No. 3427 of 1990.

        R. Mohan and V.G. Pragasam for the Appellant.                           G
        T. Raja for the Respondents.

        The following Order of the Court was delivered :

        Leave granted.                                                          H
                                       563
    564                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A         Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we think that the
    Tribunal, by the impugned order, was not justified in summarily disposing
    of the matter without considering the rival contentions which in the back-
    ground of the facts of this case, ought to be gone into. Under these
    circumstances, the order of the Tribunal dated 10.1.1995 made in 0.A.
    3427/90 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tamil Nadu Administra-
B   tive Tribunal, Madras, for a fresh disposal according to law. It is made
    clear that we are not expressing any opinion on merits and the Tribunal is
    free to consider the entire controversy in the light of the Government order
    and pass appropriate orders according to Rules.

c          The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.

    R.P.                                                       Appeal allowed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Administrative law"Sign in to search