Triveni Edl.Rural ... vs The Union Of India,Rep.By ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1126 Tel

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

                  WRIT PETITION No.11405 of 2012

ORDER:

The petitioner filed this writ petition for the following relief:

"to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari:

(a) Call for the records relating to and connected with the impugned orders vide proceedings bearing No.F21(2)/05-07/SSH/AP/1174 Dt.23/24.02.2012 and quash or set aside the same holding it as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and violative of principles of natural Justice and

(b) direct the respondents to grant the permission to run the short stay home and release the grant in aid for successfully running the short stay home upto 27.02.2012 at Jagitial Karimnagar with all consequential benefits,

(c) further direct the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner to shift the SSH at Godavarikhani and on such granting permission to shift further direct to release the grants..."

1. Heard Sri K.S.V. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner,

Sri V.T. Kalyan learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

Nos.1 to 3, Smt B.V.Aparna Lakshmi learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.4.

2. Brief facts of the case are:

2.1. The petitioner submits that the petitioner Society is registered

under the Societies Registration Act, 2001 vide registration No.2875 of

1997. The aims and objects of the Society are as follows:

1. To fund and run educational and rural Development, Cultural, Medical, Social Forest and all or any of the Technological subjects in Andhra Pradesh State.

2. To aid any such institution that run with similar aims.

3. To acts as Trust Board to accept endowment to request donations etc., and other transfers of property made to the Society and administer them in accordance with the terms agreed to.

4. To raise necessary funds to maintain educational institutions under its management and administer the same.

5. To acquire and dispose of the properties for the benefit of the Society.

6. To print and publish journals or magazines with Articles contributing to growth of knowledge human understanding and culture.

2.2 Respondent No.1 had been undertaking various welfare

measures for development of women and children across the country.

The Central Social Welfare Board (for short 'CSWB') was formed on

12.08.1953 in order to reach out to all uncovered areas of the country

so that each scheme initiated by respondent No.1 on women and child

development are effectively implemented and a new corporate

philosophy was adopted and participations with NGO mooted for

effective implementation of the scheme. The petitioner further submits

that CSWB is fully funded by respondent No.1 Department. CSWB

had granted permission to implement the scheme of 'Short Stay Home'

in Jagtial town for the year 2008-09. She further submits that the

petitioner Society had taken the premises bearing No.6-2-96

Hanumanwada, Old Dharmapuri Road, Jagtial, Karimnagar on rent

and running the 'Short Stay Home'. CSWB sanctioned a budget of

Rs.50,000/- for the year 2008-09 and respondent No.1 sanctioned an

amount of Rs.6,00,000/- under the head of recurring expenditure to

the petitioner Society for the year 2009-10 vide sanction order dated

31.03.2010 and for the year 2010-11 vide orders dated 01.11.2010.

2.3. She also stated that the petitioner Society has submitted letters

on 26.01.2011, 01.03.2011, 10.03.2011, 28.04.2011, 09.05.2011,

19.05.2011 and 30.05.2011 to the respondents seeking permission to

shift the 'Short Stay Home' to Godavarikhani and respondent No.1

neither granted permission nor rejected the request of the petitioner

for shifting. She further stated that respondent No.4 visited and

inspected the premises at H.No.6-2-96 Hanumanwada, Old

Dharampuri Road, Jagtial, Karimnagar on 19.02.2010 and after being

satisfied with the facilities at 'Short Stay Home' respondent No.4 had

recommended it for further continuation of the scheme. She further

stated that CSWB granted Rs.7,09,740/- as grant in aid to the

petitioner Society for the year 2009-10 vide orders dated 31.03.2010,

similarly an amount of Rs.7,56,393/- for the year 2010-11. The

petitioner further submits that the owner of the house had forcibly

evicted the petitioner Society from House bearing No.6-2-96 and the

petitioner has taken new premises bearing No.6-2-37/1 opposite

Berayya Gudi, Hanumanwada, Jagtial, Karimnagar and shifted the

'Short Stay Home' to the said premises. Accordingly, informed the

respondent No.3 vide letters dated 15.06.2011, 08.08.2011 and again

on 28.10.2011. The petitioner further submits that on 14.07.2011

respondent No.2 had issued a show cause notice stating that the

petitioner Society is not running 'Short Stay Home' and why the grant

should not be discontinued and suspended the grant in favour of

petitioner Society with immediate effect. Petitioner submitted

explanations on 21.07.2011, 30.08.2011 and 05.08.2011 denying the

allegations leveled in the show cause notice, but respondents without

considering the explanations submitted by the petitioner

passed the impugned order vide proceedings bearing No.F.21(2)/05/

07/SSH/AP/1174 dated 23/24.02.2012. Hence, the writ petition.

3. Respondent No.4 filed counter on behalf of respondent Nos.2

and 3 contending that the petitioner Society entered into a Rental

Agreement for location of 'Short Stay Home' at H.No.7-7-77, Ashok

Nagar, Jagtial, Karimnagar District for a period from 01.01.2006 to

31.01.2007. The petitioner Society has submitted another Rental

Agreement for the period from 17.09.2009 to 16.07.2010 for location of

'Short Stay Home' at H.No.6-2-96, Hanumanwada, Jagtial, Karimnagar

District. The Short Stay Home sanctioned by respondent No.2 was

shifted to new place without obtaining permission from the respondent

No.2 as per the terms and conditions of the sanctioned order. On

08.02.2010 respondent No.2 issued letter vide Proc.No.21(2)5/2007/

SSH/AP/2467 directing the petitioner to submit the clarification.

3.1 Respondent No.4 further submits that the petitioner submitted

representation to respondent No.2 for shifting the 'Short Stay Home'

from Karimnagar District of Telangana region to Nandigama town of

Krishna District. Respondent No.2 vide proceedings

No.21(2)/5/07/SSH/AP/1485, dated 03.09.2010 has refused to give

his approval for shifting the location of 'Short Stay Home' from one

District to another District as the same comes under the purview of

Ministry of Welfare and Child Development, Government of India.

Respondent No.4 also not recommend for shifting of 'Short Stay Home'

from Karimnagar District to Krishna District as already there are

three 'Short Stay Homes' existing in Krishna District.

3.2 Respondent No.4 further stated that their officials inspected the

petitioner's institution on 30.12.2010 to verify whether the petitioner's

institution has carried out the suggestions given by the respondent

No.4 for improving its performance. During inspection the 'Short Stay

Home' was not found in the sanctioned location and the officials who

inspected the premises recommended to discontinue the programme.

Pursuant to the said inspection report of the Field Officer of

respondent No.4, the respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice on

14.07.2011 directing the petitioner to submit an explanation and also

suspended the grant vide proceedings

F.No.21(2)/5/07/SSH/AP/ 3341, dated 14.07.2011. He further

submits that respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated

23/24.02.2012 stating that the petitioner is not entitled to seek any

grant on the ground that petitioner violated terms and conditions of

the sanctioned order.

4. The petitioner Society filed reply affidavit, denying the averments

made by respondent No.4 in the counter affidavit, specifically

contending that the respondent No.2 issued show cause notice on

14.07.2011 without furnishing the copy of a report submitted by the

officials of the respondent No.4 and the petitioner submitted detailed

explanation on 21.07.2011 denying the allegations made in the show

cause notice dated 14.07.2011 and the respondent No.2 without

considering the explanation passed the impugned order dated

23/24.02.2012.

5. Learned counsel Sri K.S.V. Subba Rao vehemently contended

that respondent No.2 issued show cause notice on 14.07.2011 alleging

that the petitioner Society is not running 'Short Stay Home' at Jagtial

particularly from 2010 onwards though the petitioner Society is

running the 'Short Stay Home' and the respondents have sanctioned

the amounts to the petitioner Society. The respondent No.2 issued

show cause notice basing on the inspection report dated 30.12.2010,

while issuing the show cause notice itself, respondent No.2 has taken

a decision suspending the grant with immediate effect to the petitioner

Society and the same is contrary to the law.

5.1. He submits that respondent No.2 even before calling for the

explanation from the petitioner Society, came to a conclusion and

taken a decision suspending the grant to the petitioner Society and the

issuance of the show cause notice dated 14.07.2011 is empty

formality. He further submits that the petitioner submitted

explanation to the show cause notice on 21.07.2011 denying the

allegations made therein and also submitted another

representation/explanation on 23.07.2011 after obtaining the copy of

the report under RTI Act. Respondent No.2 without considering the

explanations, without conducting any enquiry and without perusing

the audit reports, passed the impugned order on 23/24.02.2012,

without giving any reasons and the same is contrary to the settled

principles of law. In support of his contention he relied upon the

Judgment reported in AIR 1989 SC 568 between H.L. Trehan And

Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc on 22 November, 19881.

6. Sri V.T.Kalyan, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.1,

2 and 3 submits that Field Officer of respondent No.4 inspected the

premises on 30.12.2010 to verify whether the petitioner has carried

out the suggestions of respondent No.4, but during the inspection the

'Short Stay Home' was not found in the sanctioned location and the

inspected officials recommended to discontinue the programme.

Respondent No.2 has rightly issued the show cause notice directing

the petitioner to submit explanation and also suspended the grant vide

proceedings No.21(2)/5/07/SSH/AP/ 3341 dated 14.07.2011.

Respondent No.2 after following due procedure as contemplated under

law passed the impugned order on 23/24.02.2012.

1 AIR 1989 SC 568

6.1 He further contended that in the representation dated 05.04.2009

the petitioner herself admitted that the respondents have not granted

permission to shift the 'Short Stay Home' from H.No.7-7-77, Ashok

Nagar, Jagtial to the premises bearing H.No.6-2-96, Hanumanwada,

Old Dharmapuri Road, Jagtial town. He also submits that respondent

No.2 after taking into consideration the report submitted by the

respondent No.4 and after considering the explanation submitted by

the petitioner has rightly passed the impugned order and the same is

in accordance with law. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.4 also reiterated the very same contention.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective

parties and a perusal of the material available on record reveals that

the respondent authorities granted permission in favour of petitioner

Society to implement the scheme of Short Stay Home in Jagtial,

Karimnagar District and the respondents have sanctioned amounts for

the years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. Respondent No.2 issued

the show cause notice basing on the report submitted by the officials

of the respondent No.4 on 14.07.2011 on the ground that the

petitioner Society is not running 'Short Stay Home' at the sanctioned

location and sought explanation from the petitioner and also

suspended the grant in favour of the petitioner Society.

7.1 It also reveals from the record that the petitioner Society

submitted explanations on 21.07.2011 and 23.07.2011 but the

respondent No.2 without considering the explanation submitted to the

said show cause notice passed the impugned order dated

23/24.02.2012 which reads as follows:

"I am directed to invite your attention to the subject cited above and to state that SSH run by your organization was visited by the field officer on 30.12.2010 and on the basis of the observations made in the inspection report, show Cause Notice was issued, the explanation was submitted by the voluntary organization and State Board was asked to forward their comments.

In the meantime another visit was conducted on 02.11.2011 which clearly had ascertained the non- existence of Short Stay Home. Neighbourhood inquiry also conducted and confirmed the fact that he SSH was not functioning.

In view of the position explained above, a decision is taken to discontinue the grant w.e.f 30.12.2010 i.e., date of first inspection."

7.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent

No.2 issued show cause notice on 14.07.2011 basing on the report

submitted by the officials of the respondent No.4 dated 30.12.2010

and in the very same show cause notice respondent No.2 has taken

a decision suspending the grant with immediate effect. Respondent

No.2 has already come to a conclusion basing on the report and the

issuance of show cause notice is empty formality. Though the

petitioner submitted detailed explanation on 21.07.2011 and

23.07.2011 to the show cause notice dated 14.07.2011, the same

were not considered by respondent No.2 and passed the impugned

order dated 23/24.02.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied

upon the judgment reported in H.L. Trehan And Ors. Etc vs Union

Of India And Ors.

12. It is, however, contended on behalf of CORIL that after the impugned circular was issued, an opportunity of hearing was given to the employees with regard to the alterations made in the conditions of their service by the impugned circular. In our opinion, the post-decisional opportunity of hearing does not subserve the rules of natural justice. The authority who embarks upon a post- decisional hearing will naturally proceed with a closed mind and there is hardly any chance of getting a proper consideration of the representation at such a post- decisional opportunity. In this connection, we may refer to a recent decision of this Court in K.I. Shephard v. Union of India [(1987) 4 SCC 431 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 438]. What happened in that case was that the Hindustan Commercial Bank, the Bank of Cochin Ltd. and Lakshmi Commercial Bank, which were private banks, were amalgamated with Punjab National Bank, Canara Bank

and State Bank of India respectively in terms of separate schemes drawn under Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Pursuant to the schemes, certain employees of the first mentioned three banks were excluded from employment and their services were not taken over by the respective transferee banks. Such exclusion was made without giving the employees, whose services were terminated, an opportunity of being heard. Ranganath Misra, J. speaking for the court observed as follows: (SCC pp. 448-49, para 16)

"We may now point out that the learned Single Judge for the Kerala High Court had proposed a post-

amalgamation hearing to meet the situation but that has been vacated by the Division Bench. For the reasons we have indicated, there is no justification to think of a post- decisional hearing. On the other hand the normal rule should apply. It was also contended on behalf of the respondents that the excluded employees could not represent and their case could be examined. We do not think that would meet the ends of justice. They have already been thrown out of employment and having been deprived of livelihood they must be facing serious difficulties. There is no justification to throw them out of employment and then give them an opportunity of representation when the requirement is that they should have the opportunity referred to above as a condition precedent to action. It is common experience that once a decision has been taken, there is a tendency to uphold it and a representation may not really yield any fruitful purpose."

13. The view that has been taken by this Court in the above observation is that once a decision has been taken, there is a tendency to uphold it and a representation may not yield any fruitful purpose. Thus, even if any hearing was given to the employees of CORIL after the issuance of the impugned circular, that would not be any compliance with the rules of natural justice or avoid the mischief of arbitrariness as contemplated by Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court, in our opinion, was perfectly justified in quashing the impugned circular.

7.3 In the above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the appellant

corporation therein has issued Circular dated 08.03.1978 altering

service conditions of the employees of their corporation without giving

any opportunity to the employees/affected parties. After issuance of

the impugned Circular the management/appellant given an

opportunity of hearing to the employees with regard to the alterations

made in the conditions of their services. The Hon'ble Apex Court

observed that the post decisional opportunity of hearing does not

subserve the rules of natural justice. The principle laid down in the

above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the

facts and circumstances of the case on hand on the ground that

respondent No.2 issued show cause notice dated 14.07.2011 calling

explanation from the petitioner pending enquiry and the respondent

No.2 suspended the grant in favour of the petitioner. The suspension

of grant in favour of the petitioner pending enquiry is interim nature

only and the respondent No.2 has not taken any final decision through

the impugned show cause notice. It is also significant to note that the

petitioner has not questioned the said show cause notice-cum-

suspension order dated 14.07.2011 on the other hand he submitted

explanation and also participated in the proceedings and thereafter the

respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 23/24.02.2012.

The petitioner filed the present writ petition questioning the said order

and he is not entitled to raise objection on the show cause notice cum

suspension order dated 14.07.2011.

7.4 However the records clearly shows that pursuant to the show

cause notice dated 14.07.2011 the petitioner submitted explanations

on 21.07.2011 and 23.07.2011 respectively and the respondent No.2

without considering the same passed the cryptic order without

assigning any reasons.

7.5 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.N. Mukherjee vs Union Of

India2 held that administrative action must be supported by reasons.

In this instant case also respondent No.2 passed the impugned order

without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and

without giving any reasons. The impugned order passed by respondent

2 AIR 1990 (SC) 1984

No.2 is clear violation of principles of natural justice.

8. In view of the foregoing reasons, without going into the merits of

the case, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 vide

proceedings No.F.21(2)/05/07/SSH/A/1174, dated 23/24.02.2012 is

set aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to consider the explanations

submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice dated

14.07.2011, after giving opportunity to the petitioner and pass

appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two (2)

months from date of receipt of the copy this order.

9. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending

in this writ petition shall stand closed.

_____________________________ JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

10th March, 2023 PSW

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

WRIT PETITION No.11405 of 2012

10th March, 2023

PSW