Locus standi and audi alteram partem govern rescission of slum-notification powers affecting occupants

An association representing slum dwellers and a resident had locus standi to challenge State action affecting the occupants, because a bona fide public-spirited challenge on behalf of persons unable to approach the court themselves was maintainable. The Government's implied power to rescind notifications under the General Clauses Act had to be exercised consistently with the slum law's scheme, since declarations under the statute materially affected the inhabitants. Rescission without notice or hearing to the affected occupants violated audi alteram partem and was invalid, though fresh action after hearing them remained open.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellants had locus standi to challenge the notification affecting slum dwellers; (ii) whether the Government could rescind the earlier notifications under the slum legislation without hearing the affected occupants and whether such action violated natural justice.

Issue (i): whether the appellants had locus standi to challenge the notification affecting slum dwellers.

Analysis: The challenge concerned an action of the State affecting a class of slum dwellers. An association representing such persons, and a resident of the area, could maintain proceedings to enforce the affected persons' rights. A bona fide public-spirited challenge on behalf of those unable to approach the Court themselves was held maintainable.

Conclusion: The appellants had locus standi to invoke the Court's jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): whether the Government could rescind the earlier notifications under the slum legislation without hearing the affected occupants and whether such action violated natural justice.

Analysis: The power to issue a notification includes the power to rescind it under the General Clauses Act, but that implied power must be exercised consistently with the scheme and object of the statute. Since declarations under Sections 3 and 11 of the slum law materially affect the inhabitants and the statutory scheme contemplates their interest, any later variation or rescission affecting them required an opportunity of being heard. Rescission without notice to the affected persons was therefore contrary to the audi alteram partem rule.

Conclusion: The rescinding notification was invalid for violation of natural justice, though the Government was left free to proceed after hearing the slum dwellers.

Final Conclusion: The impugned High Court order was set aside and the notification quashed, with liberty to the Government to take fresh action after affording the affected occupants an opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory scheme affecting a defined class has already engaged the rights and interests of that class, an implied power to rescind a notification cannot be exercised to their prejudice without compliance with the audi alteram partem rule.

---