State of Orissa vs. Dr.
(Miss) Binapani Dei
Supreme Court of India
State of Orissa vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269, 1967 SCR (2) 625
State of Orissa (Appellant) vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei (Respondent)
February 1967
Justice K. Subba Rao and Justice J.C. Shah
Justice K. Subba Rao delivered the opinion of the Court.
He emphasized that:Administrative actions which affect the rights of individuals must follow
principles of natural justice, especially the right to be heard.
The act of changing the respondent’s date of birth without affording her an opportunity to be heard
was unjust and invalid.
13"If there is a power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is
implicit in the exercise of such power."
13"An order which results in civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural
justice. Civil consequences cover infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil
liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damage
14"The rule that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing
applies equally to judicial as well as administrative inquiries."
This case is foundational in establishing that natural justice is a constitutional guarantee applicable
even to administrative actions.
Violation of procedural fairness in administrative decisions,
Change in service conditions or retirement,
Absence of a hearing before passing prejudicial orders,
Then this case strongly supports the proposition that even non-judicial authorities must offer a fair
hearing before taking any action with civil consequences.
State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Ganesh Wood Products
Supreme Court of India
(1995) 6 SCC 363; AIR 1996 SC 149; JT 1995 (6) SC 485
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others (Appellants) vs. Ganesh Wood Products & Others (Respondents)
11 September 1995
Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy and Justice S.C. Sen (State of Himachal Pradesh and ors v Ganesh Wood
Products and ors, Appeal decision, Civil Appeals Nos 8184-93 of 1995, AIR 1996 SC 149, JT1995
(6) SC 485, 19953RRR589, 1995(5)SCALE303, (1995) 6 SCC 363, [1995] Supp 3 SCR 477, ILDC
1016 (IN 1995), 11th September 1995, India, Intergenerational equity – Rights of human and natural
capital, State of Himachal Pradesh v Ganesh Wood Products on 11 September 1995 - Judgement
Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy
The Court emphasized the necessity of sustainable development and the principle of intergenerational
equity.
It held that the State must assess the availability of raw materials (khair wood) before permitting the
establishment of industries dependent on forest produce.
The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remitted the matter for fresh consideration,
directing the State to conduct a proper survey of khair wood availability. (Intergenerational equity –
Rights of human and natural capital, State of Himachal Pradesh and ors v Ganesh Wood Products and
ors, Appeal decision, Civil Appeals Nos 8184-93 of 1995, AIR 1996 SC 149, JT1995 (6) SC 485,
19953RRR589, 1995(5)SCALE303, (1995) 6 SCC 363, [1995] Supp 3 SCR 477, ILDC 1016 (IN
1995), 11th September 1995, India, State of HP v. Ganesh Woods MANU/SC/0038/1996 | NLS
Enlaw)
63"The present generation has no right to imperil the safety and well-being of the next generation or
the generations to come thereafter."
65"The government of Himachal Pradesh shall make a survey and assess the approximate availability
of khair wood in the year 1996 and the ensuing years through an expert body."
65"No new industry/unit for manufacture of katha shall be approved by government pending a final
decision by the government on the question of availability of raw material in the years to come."
This case is pivotal for moots involving environmental law, sustainable development, and
administrative discretion. It underscores the judiciary's role in enforcing environmental safeguards
and the necessity for governmental due diligence before permitting industries that exploit natural
resources. The principles laid down are directly applicable to scenarios where industrial development
must be balanced against ecological preservation
