Judgment :- Mishra, J.: W.ANo.548 of 1990 by the Union of India, W.ANo.648 of 1990 by the Metropolitan Development Authority and W.ANo.554 of 1990 by the Contractors been entrusted with the execution of the work of construction of an Office Complex Public Works Department of the Central Government, are directed against the W.P.No.5678 of 1989 filed by the first respondent in all these appeals, viz., Besant Residents Forum represented by its Secretary, who incidentally also has W.A.No.1007 of 1990 against the same very order. Moving this Court for a writ of and a consequential mandamus for quashing Notification No.VI(1)/951/88 (D2(R) dated 17.10.1988 and praying to restrain the respondents from proceeding construction of any Office Complex in a piece of land measuring about 7 acres comprised S.Nos.46 (part), 47 and 49 of Uroor village, Besant Nagar, the Writ Petitioner respondent) alleged that Besant Nagar and its vicinity in the City of Madras originally planned as a primary residential locality and accordingly classified as a Zone was, in violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and the Rules framed thereunder, reclassified institutional Zone. 2. In a well considered judgment in the writ petition wherein all relevant facts stated it is difficult to find any error yet, since learned counsel for the appellants chosen to canvass before us for a remand for re-hearing on the ground that principles natural justice were not adhered to, in order to justify we propose to state the fundamental facts for the contentions that have been raised before us and deal with afresh even cost of repetition of the citations and the findings recorded by the learned single Judge. 3. The petitioner has claimed that according to the plans approved under Sec.28 of Besant Nagar was acknowledged as a residential Zone. The Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as the ‘ M.M.D.A short, as well as the Corporation of Madras always sanctioned building plans on that and provided infrastructure such as sewerage, drinking water, public health facilities, and public establishments, etc. as planned for a primary residential locality. The Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as the ‘ M.M.D.A short, as well as the Corporation of Madras always sanctioned building plans on that and provided infrastructure such as sewerage, drinking water, public health facilities, and public establishments, etc. as planned for a primary residential locality. In the course the development, according to the writ petitioner-first respondent, every inch of space, except for a plot of land situate opposite to the Olcott School and measuring acres comprised in S.Nos.46 (part), 47 and 49 of Urur village was occupied by the residential houses and such other establishments which are required for a residential area. The space of 7 acres which was originally acquired by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board along other lands in Besant Nagar area for the specific purpose of developing it into a residential locality was somehow transferred to the Central Public Works Department. The petitioner-first respondent found to its dismay that the fourth respondent in the writ Central Public Works Department started construction activities in the said lands “unplanned and reckless manner in contravention of all developmental rules”. The petitioner learnt that the fourth respondent proposed to construct a mammooth office complex a floor space of about 1,50,000 sq.ft. plinth area on the vacant site. The writ petitioner respondent then made representations to the ‘M.M.D.A’ . Having found that the respondent was proceeding with the construction activities of the proposed Office without complying with the provisions-of the Act and the Rules and without any approved plan, the Development Authority (M.M.D.A) stopped the said construction and informed petitioner-first respondent accordingly on 11.10.1986. The fourth respondent, according the writ petitioner (first respondent) thereafter approached the first respondent M.M.D.A reclassify the land as institutional Zone, which in turn would permit it to put up the complex. The Member Secretary of M.M.D.A as a delegate of the State Government took matter of re-classification and at some stage noticed the writ petitioner first respondent inviting objections and asking it whether it desired to be heard. Several objections were to the proposed reclassification including objections by the writ petitioner-first respondent, Vide its representation dated 20.8.1988. The Member Secretary called the objectors for a discussion Vide letter dated 2.9.1988. Such a meeting was held 8.9.1988 in which the Chief Planner and the Member Secretary participated. The petitioner-first respondent gave its representations on that day as well objecting to classification. The Member Secretary called the objectors for a discussion Vide letter dated 2.9.1988. Such a meeting was held 8.9.1988 in which the Chief Planner and the Member Secretary participated. The petitioner-first respondent gave its representations on that day as well objecting to classification. Its objections primarily were: (1) The classification would result in increasing the noise and dust pollution in the residential area and beyond bearable limits; (2) The existing infrastructure of civic amenities was made only for a “Primary Residential Zone” and it would not be in a position to cater to the sudden influx of a huge population on account of the proposed office complex. (3) The residents of Besant Nagar are entirely dependent on ground water for their The rate of extraction of ground water is in excess of the replenishment of ground water. fact, in August, 1985, the Besant Nagar Citizens’ forum and Kalakshetra Colony Association, both affiliates of the writ petitioner first respondent, at the request of the Nadu Prevention and Control of Water Pollution Board vide its letter No.13630/ 88 dated 6.9.1985, conducted a survey of the rate of extraction of ground water in the Nagar Area. It has established that from dozen larger wells approximately 4,50,000 of water was extracted per day. Apart from this, an estimated 1,000 private borewells 1/2 “diameter) have accounted for an additional 2,000 gallons per day. The Reserve Bank India Staff Quarters situated near the proposed project of the fourth respondent approximately 1,85,000 gallons of ground water per day from two wells. The extraction ground water on these lines at the rate of approximately 1.25 million gallons per day, stated above, unless replenished, would result in the incursion of sea water from Once such incursion takes place the process is irreversible and would lead to a catastrophic situation where the entire ground water in the Besant Nagar area would turn blackish making it unfit for human consumption.” 4. Ignoring, however, the objections and acting without jurisdiction, according to the petitioner-first respondent, the Member Secretary issued the impugned Notification. 5. Ignoring, however, the objections and acting without jurisdiction, according to the petitioner-first respondent, the Member Secretary issued the impugned Notification. 5. In the return filed on behalf of M.M.D.A. it is conceded that the land in S.Nos.46 47 and 49 of Uroor village was a site for primary residential use in the approved layout the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and it is also stated that the same was sold to the Public Works Department-fourth respondent in the writ petition by the Housing Board valid consideration. It is further stated that originally the master plan for Metropolitan area was prepared in 1975 in accordance with Sec.17 of the Act, that preparation of the detailed development plan as contemplated under Sec.10 of the Act to be done later and that the State Government possessed the power under Sec.32(4) Act to vary, revoke or modify the plan. The Government delegated its power under Sec.32 the Member Secretary of the Developmental Authority Vide G.O.Ms.No.419, Housing Urban Development Department dated 1.5.1984 and that exercising this power the Member Secretary re-classified S.Nos.46(part), 47 and 49 of Uroor village from primary use zone to institutional use zone. 6. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Central Public Works Department Union of India, it is stated that the land had been purchased solely for Central Government use and the proposal to construct office complex was to benefit the local residents Central Government employees at Besant Nagar and neighbouring area. Saying details why the Central Government decided to move for re-classification of the institutional zone, it is stated that the construction work was taken up only approval of plans by the M.M.D.A. The counter affidavit contains a statement of certain suggesting that the decision to construct the office complex was taken for the reason such a complex would invite only floating population of visitors and staff and residents on permanent basis who would cause more pressure on sewerage, electricity water supply. In other words, the area of plot being 7.00 acres, the Department constructed 500 quarters with allowed floor space index (F.S.I.) of 1.6 for this providing these 500 quarters, the consumption of water per day could be easily gallons. Now, the Central Government has proposed to construct an office accommodation with the useful area of 22,000 which would accommodate only 1,500 persons. Now, the Central Government has proposed to construct an office accommodation with the useful area of 22,000 which would accommodate only 1,500 persons. The consumption of water would be around 15,000 gallons per day which is only l/6th of the consumption, had the residential quarters been constructed. The re-classification will result in a reduction of strain on the drainage system, traffic, etc. which will be beneficial to the residents of Besant Nagar. The sewerage discharge from the quarters will be much more and thus by proposing the accommodation, the Central Government has reduced the load on the sewerage system. are not required in the instant case to traverse through all that had been argued before learned single judge or to pronounce upon the respondent-petitioner’s locus standi question the re-classification on grounds inter alia of violation of the provisions of Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, whether there has been actually any violation any provisions thereof in entertaining the application of the Central Public Works Department by the M.M.D.A. as after taking notice of such arguments, learned single Judge has said his order that in course of deciding to re-classify the land as institutional zone, the Member Secretary of the M.M.D.A. did issue a notice to the respondent-petitioner, allowed them file objections, held some sort of discussions with their representatives and thereafter decided to re-classify and change the class of land from primary residential zone institutional zone. Learned single Judge has found however that in course of inquiry into objections of the respondent-petitioner, the Member-Secretary violated the principle natural justice and since full and adequate opportunity of being heard was not afforded them, the decision of the Member-Secretary fell in error. 7. There is the long line of decisions saying that when the law under which any authority required to take a decision, which is likely to affect some one ’ s right or interests whether individual or in common with other persons, he must act in accordance with the principle natural Justice. Any decision which causes a civil consequence, has to conform to the applied to quasi judicial proceedings. If the statute demands a notice of hearing, it makes clear provision for it. If, however, it does not make any such provision, but also introduces no provision to a hearing, rules of natural Justice step in. Any decision which causes a civil consequence, has to conform to the applied to quasi judicial proceedings. If the statute demands a notice of hearing, it makes clear provision for it. If, however, it does not make any such provision, but also introduces no provision to a hearing, rules of natural Justice step in. The rule of audi alteram partem is now established, must inform every quasi judicial process. And what does it say? Does only say that those who should be heard, were likely to be condemned? Courts in India Courts in England have adopted it as a principle of wider amplitude holding that it must be given a narrow meaning and that full and adequate opportunity of being heard alone justify any quasi judicial process. Besides this and yet another rule of natural justice, Nemo debut cess judex in causea propria sua, a third rule has taken roots that in deciding disputes and differences and in such other adjudications, orders made must contain sufficiently clear and explicit reasons; then alone administrative authorities and tribunals exercising quasi judicial functions will be able to justify their existence and carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence in the adjudicatory process. The law in this has been stated in Siemens Engg. & Mfg. Co. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1785: S.C.R. (Supp.) 489, by the Supreme Court in these words: "If courts of law are to be replaced by administrative authorities and tribunals, as indeed, some kinds of cases, with the proliferation of Administrative law, they may have replaced, it is essential that administrative authorities and tribunals should accord fair proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them. Then alone, administrative authorities and tribunals exercising quasi judicial functions will be able to justify existence and carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence in the adjudicatory process. Then alone, administrative authorities and tribunals exercising quasi judicial functions will be able to justify existence and carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence in the adjudicatory process. The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is like the principle audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law." The Supreme Court has in one of its latest judgments in Rajpur Development Authority M/s.Chokhamal Contractors, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1426, observed, "It is now well settled that an award can neither be remitted nor set aside merely on Ground that it does not contain reasons in support of the conclusion or decisions reached in it where the arbitration agreement or the deed of submission requires him to give reasons. arbitrator or umpire is under no obligation to give reasons in support of the decision reached by him unless under the arbitration agreement or in the deed of submission he is required give such reasons and if the arbitrator or umpire chooses to give reasons in support decision, it is open to the Court to set aside the award if it finds that an error of law has committed by the arbitrator or umpire on the face of the record on going through reasons. The arbitrator or umpire shall have to give reasons also where the Court directed in any order such as the one made under Sec.20 or Sec.21 or Sec.34 of the Act reasons should be given or where the statute which governs an arbitration requires him so. “ We have already observed that the two recognised principles of natural Justice were (i) a Judge or an Umpire who is entrusted with the duty to decide a dispute, should disinterested and unbiased, Name debut cess judex in causa propria sua and (ii) that parties to dispute should be given adequate notice and opportunity by the Authority, alteram partem. For the first time, this Court laid down that the rule requiring reasons support of an order is a third principle of natural justice. For the first time, this Court laid down that the rule requiring reasons support of an order is a third principle of natural justice. It may be observed in Bhagat v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1606, that the Court may require a Tribunal to reasons in support of its order in order to make the exercise of power of the High under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution and the power of this Court under Art. 136 Constitution of India effective.” In yet another case in Neelima Misra v. Horinder Paintal, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1402, the Supreme Court has observed, “ An administration function is called quasi judicial when there is an obligation to adopt judicial approach and to comply with the basic requirements of justices. Where there such obligation, the decision is called ‘purely administrative’ and there is no third category. “The shift now is to a broader notion of fairness or fair procedure in the administrative As far as the administrative officers are concerned, the duty is not so much to act judicially as to act fairly. For this concept of fairness, adjudicative settings are not necessary, nor necessary to have lites inter parties. There need not be any struggle between two opposing parties giving rise to a lie. There need not be resolution of to inter parties. The duty judicially or to act fairly may arise in widely different circumstances. It may arise expressly impliedly depending upon the context and considerations. All these types of non-adjudicative administrative decision making are now covered under the general rubric of fairness of administration. But then even such an administrative decision unless it affects one rights or one ’ s property rights, or the loss of or prejudicially affects something which juridically be called at least a privilege does not involve the duty to act fairly consistent the rule of natural justice. ” We cannot discover any principle contrary to this concept. We quote a specific finding in order of the learned single Judge, we think, it is not necessary to refer to any foundational facts, as he has found, “ Water is the most important of the elements of the nature ” . ” We cannot discover any principle contrary to this concept. We quote a specific finding in order of the learned single Judge, we think, it is not necessary to refer to any foundational facts, as he has found, “ Water is the most important of the elements of the nature ” . In State of Himachal Pradesh Umed Ram Sharma, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 847, the Supreme Court has held that every person entitled to life as enjoined in Art.21 of the Constitution, that he has also the right Art.21 to hie life and that right under Art.21 embraces not only physical existence of life also the quality of life. Considering the allegations made by the petitioner Association and complaints made with regard to the intrusion of the sea water into ground water, I am of view that the petitioner should have the right of using the ground water without infiltration and without any pollution due to the construction of a huge office complex. view of the constitutional imperatives, I am of the view that the denial of right would denial of life as understood in its richness and fullness by the ambit of the Constitution. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 180, it has been held that object alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life livable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to life. ‘All the materials placed before me by the petitioner association for consideration and the report of the Consultant dated 27/02/1990 produced by the petitioner association will clearly shows that the water sample made in three different locations show that if in the western part, the extraction of ground water increased, it will result in an irreversible phenomenon of sea water intrusion towards and the whole area will be spoilt by salinity. The report of the Chief Water Analyst dated 23.6.1989 addressed to the Assistant Engineer, Central Public Works Department, Madras only shows that the water is usable for building construction purposes. The report of the Chief Water Analyst dated 23.6.1989 addressed to the Assistant Engineer, Central Public Works Department, Madras only shows that the water is usable for building construction purposes. As stated paragraph 13 of the affidavit, I.S.I. specification for drinking water, in dissolved solids maximum is 500 ppm, and in the objections raised by the petitioner association, it has been clearly stated that due to overdrawal of water, sea water intrusion is taking place and detailed study on the ground water resources of Besant Nagar and its vicinity was conducted and it will be seen from the result of the study that the water is unfit for human consumption per I.S.I, standards. I am of the view that this aspect of the matter has not been considered." The above discussion alone is enough in our opinion to justify the directions issued by learned single Judge for a re-hearing of the whole matter and a decision taken strictly accordance with the principles of natural justice. The M.M.D.A. in its notification No.D2/B/6/88 had stated: "Any person who intends to make any objection or suggestion/representation as regards above variation proposal may do so in writing to the Member-Secretary, Madras Metropolitan Development Authority within 21 days from the date of this Notification........." The respondent petitioner had sent a representation and asked for a personal hearing. member-Secretary, it seems, called the representatives for a discussion on 8/9/1988 p.m. It also appears that the files had been placed before the technical expert committee 22/08/1988 which committee recommended the re-classification. Learned single Judge noticed: "I am not able to see anything in the file to the effect that the objection, especially regard to the ground water problem and the ecological imbalance which were raised petitioner association was considered before ordering the reclassification of the question." He has also said "Except the meeting held with the members of the forum, I do not see anything in that their objections have been considered fully by the first respondent herein. As such, far as I am not able to find out that their objections were duly considered, I am of the that the impugned notification has to be set aside on that ground." 8. As such, far as I am not able to find out that their objections were duly considered, I am of the that the impugned notification has to be set aside on that ground." 8. The law which we have already noticed, leads us to conclude that unless fair adequate opportunity of being heard is afforded to the respondent-petitioner and objections are disposed of with clear and explicit reasons as stated in the order, principle natural justice cannot be said to have been complied with. Nothing has been shown to take a view contrary to the view taken by the learned single Judge that fair and adequate opportunity of being heard was not afforded to the respondent-petitioner by the Member Secretary of the M.M.D.A. It is necessary that in cases of this kind, full care is taken ensure that no one ’ s right to life is affected whether on account of water pollution account of air pollution or any other ecological pollution. All other rights must lead serve the right to life because if we exist as a democracy, we exist for the life and liberty the people of India. 9. We have refrained from making observations as to the hazards which are likely caused if office complex is constructed or as suggested by the Union of India, residential houses or flats are allowed to be constructed. For, we do not think that we shall do justice the parties without there being a full and adequate consideration of all the aspects matter by the Competent Authority, viz., the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority. Learned Single Judge has committed no error of law in concluding that the impugned notification is fit to be quashed. We however direct the Member-Secretary of M.M.D.A. issue fresh notices to all concerned, give opportunity to them to file their respective objections, make to all concerned all such evidence and materials upon which he is take the decision to re-classify the land known and thereafter, make a fairly, clear explicit order dealing with all the aspects of the matter. All the parties shall be at liberty to examine technical experts on subject and scrutinise and contest the report of the technical committee on which Member-Secretary placed reliance. All the parties shall be at liberty to examine technical experts on subject and scrutinise and contest the report of the technical committee on which Member-Secretary placed reliance. The Member-Secretary shall give option to the parties bring in their own technical reports or evidence of any technical expert and afford opportunities to all parties of being heard, including objections as to jurisdiction. 10. With the direction as above, these appeals are dismissed. However, there shall be order as to costs. Writ appeals dismissed.