O‘zbekiston respublikasida ma’muriy protseduralarni takomillashtirish

Nutshell» fifth edition. Thomson/West, 2006. 222-224 p). 
 
4.14-ilova 
«1. Prior Notice and hearing. «An elementary and fundamental require, ent of due 
process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably 
calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency 
of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections». Mullane v. 
Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). Without proper prior 
notice to those who may be affected by a government decision, all other procedural 
rights may be nullified. The exact contents of the notice required by due process will, 
of course vary with the circumstances…Although prior notice of threatened adverse 
action is generally required, there are some exceptions to this principle. Most involve 
a demonstrated need for immediate action to protect the public from serious harm». 
(Ernest Gellhorn, Ronald M.Levin «Administrative Law and Process in a Nutshell» 
fifth edition. Thomson/West, 2006. 224-225 p). 
«Another consideration that can militate against the right to predeprivation notice 
and hearing is the principle that «[p]laintiffs who assert a right to a hearing under the 
Due Process Clause must show that the facts they seek to establish in that hearing are 
relevant to the statutory scheme…Still another limitation, in some cases, is the 
availability of statutory or common law remedies that can compensate the individual 
for her loss of liberty or property. Under the right circumstances, courts will hold that 
such a remedy itself provides the «process that is due». For example, in Ingraham v. 
Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977), the Court upheld a state statute and local school board 
regulations which authorized teachers to paddle students for misconduct, even though 
the students had no right to notice or a hearing before the punishment was inflicted. 
Under state law an injured student could bring a damage action if the teacher used 
excessive force, and this was considered adequate protection to satisfy the 
requirements of due process…However, the principle that damage remedies can 

---

144 
provide the «process that is due» has been largely confined to situations in which the 
state has strong reasons not to grant a predeprivation hearing. In Ingraham, the Court 
was conserned that a requirement of a prior hearing would dater teachers from 
paddling students and undermine their disciplinary authority. In Parratt and Hudson, 
the Court saw no way in which the prison could have improved its procedures for 
preventing mistakes or unauthorized misconduct by its personnel; therefore, a 
compensation system was as good a solution as the state could provide. In contrast, 
where predeprivation process would be practicable, the Court has often insisted on it. 
For example, the municipal utility in Memphis Light could easily have given its 
customer an explanation of its protest procedure before shutting off her service. 
Accordingly, the Court found that the customer’s due process rights had been 
violated, even though she theoretically could have retained an attorney and sued for 
an injunction or refund. The Court noted that it was unrealistic to expect a consumer 
to engage counsel in a case involving such small monetary stakes». (Ernest Gellhorn, 
Ronald M.Levin «Administrative Law and Process in a Nutshell» fifth edition. 
Thomson/West, 2006. 227-229 p). 
4.15-ilova 
«2. Trial-type hearings. Often a litigant claiming a denial of due process will ask 
the court to hold that the agency must afford her procedural rights similar to those 
used in judicial trials or formal administrative trial-type hearings – including the 
rights to present testimony orally and to confront and cross-examine adverse 
witnesses. In Goldberg, the Court held that welfare recipients facing termination of 
their benefits were entitled to nearly all of these rights. In subsequent cases, however, 
the Courts has made clear that trial procedures are not essential for every government 
decision that might affect an individual… In deciding what safeguards are required in 
a particular situation, courts are heavily influenced by the nature of the questions that 
are likely to arise. In Goldberg, the Court considered oral testimony and cross-
examination essential in a welfare termination case, because «written submissions are 

---

145 
a wholly unsatisfactory basis for decision» in proceedings where «credibility and 
veracity are at issue». On the other hand, an oral hearing may not be necessary when 
the usual questions to be resolved are relatively straightforward or objective… Even 
in administrative settings in which it is clear that trial-type hearings are generally 
available, such as those subject to the APA’s formal adjudication procedures, 
agencies can decline to conduct a hearing on certain issues without violating due 
process. In some circumstances, for example, an agency may promulgate a legislative 
rule, and then refuse during subsequent adjudications to hold a hearing on issues that 
it has already decided in the rulemaking proceeding; or it may place a burden of 
going forward on private parties, and enter summary judgement against those who do 
not satisfy that burden… A broader position, long urged by Professor Davis, is that 
due process generally does not require a trial on issues of «legislative fact» arising 
during an adjudication. 2 Kenneth Culp Davis, Administrative Law Treatise§12.5 (2d 
ed.1979). «Legislative» facts are general facts bearing upon issues of law or policy; 
they are contrasted with «adjudicative facts,» which are facts about the specific 
parties to the case. The extent to which the Davis theory may be an overstatement has 
never been definitively resolved in the case law» (Ernest Gellhorn, Ronald M.Levin 
«Administrative Law and Process in a Nutshell» fifth edition. Thomson/West, 2006. 
230-234 p). 
 
4.16-ilova 
« 3. Right to counsel. Section 555(b) of the APA provides that «[a] person 
compelled to appear in person before an agency or representative thereof is entitledto 
be accompanied, represented, and advised by counsel». This guarantee, however, 
applies only to those compelled to appear, not those who appear voluntarily. 
Moreover, the APA does does not apply to state and local bureaucracies, nor to 
federal agencies that are exempted by statute from APA coverage; and it says nothing 
about the person who is effectively denied representation because she cannot afford 
to retain a lawyer. Thus, there are a number of administrative settings in which an 

---

146 
asserted due process right to appear through counsel could potentially become an 
issue. The Suprime Court recognized such a right in Goldberg, holding that welfare 
beneficiaries facing termination of benefits must be allowed to retain counsel if they 
wish. Yet it is clear that due process does not guarantee a right to legal representation 
in every administrative proceeding… Appontment of counsel for those who cannot 
afford to retain their own is a different story. Although such appointments are 
common in criminal proceedings, they are rare in administrative law. Indeed, the 
Supreme Court has yet to identify even one administrative setting in which indigent