Telangana High Court
Gangarapu Swamy vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others on 15 June, 2021
Bench: A.Abhishek Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 12538 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.12538 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.12538 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
