Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Chengareddy Manasa/Penchalamma vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 December, 2023

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
              WRIT PETITION No.5961 OF 2023


Smt. Chengareddy Manasa @ Penchalamma,
W/o Chengareddy Subbareddy, Aged about 44
years, R/o Sriharipuram Village, Nidigurthi
Post, Vakadu mandal, presently R/o D.No.7-1-
59, Aakuthota Veedhi, Naidupeta Town and
Post, Naidupeta Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

                                             ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its
Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration &
Urban Development, Secretariat Buildings,
Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and
three (3) others.

                                           ... Respondents


Counsel for the petitioner      : Smt. K.Pallavi
Counsel for respondents         : GP for Municipal
                                  Administration & Urban
                                  Development and Sri Suresh
                                  Kumar Reddy Kalava


                             ORDER

Notice vide ROC No.481/2023G1, dated 14.02.2023 was

issued to the petitioner under Sections 192, 193 and 336 of

Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965. The said notice was

issued pursuant to the order dated 03.02.2023 in

SRS, J

W.P.No.2658 of 2023. The petitioner submitted explanation

on 17.02.2023. Speaking order vide ROC No.481/2023G1

dated 06.03.2023 was passed by the Commissioner of 2nd

respondent. Assailing the same, the above writ petition is

filed.

2. Heard Smt.K.Pallavi, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri V.Sai Kiran, learned counsel representing Sri N.Ranga

Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipality appearing

for the respondents 2 and 3.

3. As seen from the 6th reference cited in the order

impugned, it is the explanation submitted by the petitioner.

However, the order does not contain consideration of

explanation issued by the petitioner except mentioning that

the explanation is not satisfactory.

4. Reasons are heart and soul of the order passed by

authority.

5. In Poonamchand v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal

Corporation1 this Court has held in para-7 as under:

2012 (1) ALT 524 (S.B)

SRS, J

"7.A perusal of the impugned notice shows that respondent No. 1 has not dealt with the explanation of the petitioner and has rejected the same with a cryptic observation that the same is not satisfactory and "it may not be considered". In the opinion of this Court, the very purpose of issuing a notice under Section 452(1) of the Act is to give an opportunity to a person, who has constructed the building in an illegal or unauthorised manner, to submit his explanation. It is, therefore, obligatory on the part of respondent No. 1 to consider the explanation. If satisfactory explanation is offered by the owner of the building, respondent No. 1 shall drop further proceedings. It is only in cases where such explanation is not offered, that respondent No. 1 is not entitled to proceed further. Unless the Commissioner refers to the contents of the explanation and gives reasons for coming to the conclusion that the explanation is not satisfactory, he cannot proceed with further action and issue notice under Section 636 of the Act. Failure to deal with the explanation renders the very purpose of issuing notice nugatory."

6. In K. Ashok Kumar (supra) this Court held in paras-2

& 3 as under:

"2. Section 636 of the Act gives power to the Commissioner to require any construction made without obtaining necessary permission to be removed and in case the person to whom such a direction was issued by the Commissioner ignores or fails to remove any structure within the time specified, the said task will be carried out by the corporation at the expense of the said individual. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been issued a

SRS, J

notice in terms of Section 452 of the Act on 31.7.2012 for which a detailed reply has been filed by the petitioners on 16.8.2012. They raised several objections. Whether those objections are tenable or otherwise would be decided by the person who is concluding the exercise in accordance with Section 636 of the Act. Whereas the relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:

"the reply submitted by you vide reference 3rd cited in response to the show-cause notice has been examined and the same is not found satisfactory."

"3. To say the least this is most unsatisfactory way of deciding an issue. Every order must contain the reasons for the conclusion arrived thereat. It is the reasons which provide the links to the conclusions. The relevance of those reasons must lend support to the conclusion. The expressions "found not satisfactory" are reflective of the conclusion but, not the reason. As to why the explanation offered by the petitioners is not satisfactory, forms part of their process of reasoning."

7. In Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan2

on the point of necessity of giving reasons by a body or

authority in support of its decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court

summarized the legal position in paragraph-47, which is

reproduced as under:

"47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:

(2010) 9 SCC 496

SRS, J

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them.

All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.

(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is

SRS, J

impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons"

is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.

(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-

makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37])

(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)] , wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires,

"adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".

(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process".

8. In the case at hand, since the order does not contain

consideration of explanation submitted by the petitioner, the

proceedings impugned is liable to be set aside.

SRS, J

9. Accordingly, the proceedings vide ROC No.481/2023Gi,

dated 06.03.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the

Commissioner of 2nd respondent. The Commissioner of 2nd

respondent shall consider the explanation, dated 04.03.2023

submitted by petitioner, objectively, if necessary, afford an

opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass a

reasoned order in accordance with law and communicate the

same to the petitioner. Till such time, the respondent