THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 12536 of 2021
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1, Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA, for respondent No.2, and Sri N.Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities, for respondent No.3. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
Aggrieved by the issuance of the Final Notice No.2223/UC/TPS/2020, dated 23.02.2021 by respondent No.3, the present writ petition is filed.
A perusal of the impugned notice shows that the official respondents, without adverting to the explanation submitted by the petitioner, have passed the impugned order simply putting a blank line where the reason has to be given with regard to the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The authorities are obligated under the law to give consideration to the explanation, if any submitted by the petitioner, before passing any adverse orders and in case they are not satisfied with such explanation, the authorities shall give reasons in support of their conclusion.
This Court as well as the Apex Court, on number of occasions, have held that any authority/Court/quasi judicial authority have to necessarily give reasoning in the order passed by them. Unless reasoning is given in the order, neither the party nor Courts before whom the order is challenged will be in a position to appreciate as to what has weighed with the said authority either 2 AAR, J W.P. No.12536 of 2021 for rejecting or accepting the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Though the quasi judicial or administrative authority are not obligated to give a lengthy or elaborate reasoning as in the case of Judicial order, yet they are expected to give a reasoned order which should be precise, concisely setting out the reasons for accepting or rejecting the explanation submitted to the show cause notice.
In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota vs. Shukla and Brothers1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
".... while exercising the power of judicial review on administrative action and more particularly the judgment of courts in appeal before the higher court, providing of reasons can never be dispensed with. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard. Secondly, the authority concerned should provide a fair and transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order ....
.... A litigant who approaches the court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. The orders of the court must reflect what weighed with the court in granting or declining the relief claimed by the applicant."
1 (2010) 4 SCC 785 3 AAR, J W.P. No.12536 of 2021 For the afore-stated reasons and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shukla and brothers (supra), this Court is of the prima facie opinion that ends of justice would be met if the impugned final notice dated 23.02.2021 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.3 granting liberty to pass fresh orders assigning valid and cogent reasons, duly putting the petitioner on notice and affording an opportunity of hearing, strictly on merits. A copy of the order shall be communicated to the petitioner.
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.
Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date : 15.06.2021 sur