Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Suresh Geddam S/O Pulla Rao, vs The Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No.32904 of 2014
Suresh Geddam, S/o Pulla Rao, 30 years, R/o D.No.8-
125, Palakoderu Village & Mandal, West Godavari
District.
... Petitioner
Versus
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and three others.
... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Siva Bhami Reddy.S
Counsel for respondents : GP for Prohibition & Excise
:: ORDER :
:
Impugning the proceedings, dated 05.09.2014 passed in CR
No.4824/2014/CPE/D4, by respondent No.2- The Commissioner,
Prohibition and Excise Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad
confirming the order dated 23.06.2014 passed by respondent No.3 -
the Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise Department, West
Godavari District, Eluru in Rc.NO.112/2014/A5, the above writ
petition is filed.
SRS,J
2. Respondent No.3 passed orders confiscating the vehicle i.e.
Mahindra Tractor bearing Regd.No.AP-24-U-6529, in connection
with Crime No.44/2014, registered for the offence punishable under
Section 34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and 171 (e)
of IPC, on the ground of its involvement in illegal transportation of
liquor bottles.
3. While admitting the writ petition on 05.11.2014, interim
direction was granted in WPMP No.41147 of 2014 for release of the
subject vehicle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order
passed by respondent No.2 does not set out any reasons much less
valid reasons. The authority failed to consider the grounds urged by
the petitioner. He submits that in similar cases, the appellate
authority has been releasing the vehicle subject to payment of fine.
The authority ought to have followed the same.
5. As seen from the order, dated 05.09.2014, the reasons stated
therein are not adequate.
SRS,J
6. In S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union of India1 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court while referring to the judgment in Siemens Engineering &
Manufacturing Co. of India Limited case, held as follows:
"It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order
in exercise of a quasi-judicial function it must record its reasons in
support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be
supported by reasons. If courts of law are to be replaced by
administrative authorities and tribunals, as indeed, in some kinds of
cases, with the proliferation of Administrative Law they may have to
be so replaced, it is essential that administrative authorities and
tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons
sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and
explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them. Then along
administrative authorities and tribunals, exercising quasi-judicial
function will be able to justify their 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 of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural
justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule
must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of
compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law".
The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held as follows at
para 35:
"Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in
an order passed by its while exercising quasi-judicial functions,
1990(4) SCC 594
SRS,J
would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the
appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations,
referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in
holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its
decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show
that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves
a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness
and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-
making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and
its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to
appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the
requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions
of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions
irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal,
revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not
required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision
of a Court law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend
on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the
reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority
has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need
for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is
passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if
it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the
appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained
in the order under challenge".
7. In fact, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, the
authority did not consider the points urged by the petitioner. Being
the appellate authority, it is the bounden duty of the authority to pass
SRS,J
a reasoned order. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to set
aside the order, dated 05.09.2014 passed by respondent No.2.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the
order, dated 05.09.2014 passed in CR No.4824/2014/CPE/D4 by
respondent No.2. The matter is remitted to respondent No.2 to
reconsider and pass fresh order with reasons. The authority shall
also issue notice to the petitioner and afford opportunity of hearing
at the time of enquiry.
The above exercise will be completed within three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Date : 21.06.2024
KA
SRS,J
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No.32904 of 2014
Date: 21.06.2024
KA
