Statutory notice and explanation procedure can satisfy natural justice; tentative views in a notice do not by themselves show prejudgment.

Compliance with a statutory notice-and-explanation procedure under section 298 of the Assam Municipal Act was treated as sufficient to satisfy natural justice, because the Board received notice and an opportunity to explain and did not seek an oral hearing or further material time. The supersession charges in the final notification were held to correspond substantially with the substantive allegations in the show-cause notice, despite a different sequence and some inferential matters. A tentative view expressed in the notice was not treated as prejudgment, since the authority remained open to persuasion. On that reasoning, the supersession order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the supersession order under section 298 of the Assam Municipal Act was vitiated for want of personal hearing or opportunity to adduce further material. (ii) Whether the charges found proved in the supersession notification were different in substance from the charges mentioned in the show-cause notice. (iii) Whether the notice disclosed a closed mind so that the later proceedings were a mere formality.

Issue (i): Whether the supersession order under section 298 of the Assam Municipal Act was vitiated for want of personal hearing or opportunity to adduce further material.

Analysis: The statutory procedure required notice and consideration of the Board's explanation before action was taken. That procedure was followed. The Board did not ask for an oral hearing or for a later opportunity to produce material in support of its explanation. In those circumstances, compliance with the statutory notice-and-explanation requirement amounted to compliance with natural justice, and no additional hearing could be insisted upon as a matter of course.

Conclusion: The supersession order was not invalid on this ground and the finding is against the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the charges found proved in the supersession notification were different in substance from the charges mentioned in the show-cause notice.

Analysis: The notice set out eight matters, of which six were substantive charges and the remaining two were only inferential. The notification found six charges proved, and each of them corresponded substantially to one of the substantive charges in the notice. A mere change in sequence did not alter the identity of the allegations, and there was no material mismatch between the notice and the final notification.

Conclusion: The charges were substantially the same, so this objection fails against the respondent.

Issue (iii): Whether the notice disclosed a closed mind so that the later proceedings were a mere formality.

Analysis: Indicating a tentative conclusion in the show-cause notice did not amount to a final decision or to an impermissible prejudgment. The statute did not require a second notice merely because the Government had indicated which statutory course it was then inclined to adopt. The authority remained open to persuasion after considering the explanation.

Conclusion: There was no prejudgment invalidating the proceedings, and this contention also fails against the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The supersession order survived challenge, and the writ petition could not be maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes notice and consideration of explanation before administrative action, substantial compliance with that procedure satisfies natural justice unless a further hearing is sought and refused; a tentative view expressed in the notice does not by itself amount to prejudgment.

---