Read the excerpt quoted below from the case of ​Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal

Corporation

1. It was urged by Shri K.K.Singhvi on behalf of the Municipal Corporation that the
Legislature may well have intended that no notice need be given in any case whatsoever
because, no useful purpose could be served by issuing a notice as to why an encroachment on
a public property should not be removed. Counsel attempted to demonstrate the practical
futility of issuing the show cause notice by pointing out that the only answer which a
pavement dweller, for example, can make to such a notice is that he is compelled to live on
the pavement because he has no other place to go to. [...]

2. It may be true to say that, in the generality of cases, persons who have committed
encroachments on pavements or on other public properties may not have an effective answer
to give. It is a notorious fact of contemporary life in metropolitan cities, that no person in his
senses would opt to live on a pavement or in a slum, if any other choice were available to
him. Anyone who cares to have even a fleeting glance at the pavement or slum dwellings will
see that they are the very hell on earth. But, though this is so, the contention of the
Corporation that no notice need be given because, there can be no effective answer to it,
betrays a misunderstanding of the rule of hearing, which is an important element of the
principles of natural justice. [...]

3. The proposition that notice need not be given of a proposed action because, there can
possibly be no answer to it, is contrary to the well-recognized understanding of the real
import of the rule of hearing. That proposition overlooks that justice must not only be done
but must manifestly be seen to be done and confuses one for the other. The appearance of
injustice is the denial of justice. It is the dialogue with the person likely to be affected by the
proposed action which meets the requirement that justice must also be seen to be done.

Based on you reading of the above, answer the questions that follow: (5X3=15)

a) Why, according to Shri Singhvi, was serving a notice to the pavement dwellers futile?
What would be the underlying presumptions or understanding about justice behind
taking such a position?

b) In paragraph 2, when the Court says that “persons who have committed
encroachments on pavements or on other public properties may not have an ​effective
answer​ to give”, does it also indicate the limitations of looking for such “effective
answers”? Explain.

c) What, according to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the excerpt, leads to a misunderstanding of

the rule of hearing?