Telangana High Court

R.Shailaja vs Telangana State Road Transport ... on 8 April, 2024

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

      HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

              Writ Petition No.8929 of 2024

ORDER:

Heard Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned

Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport

Corporation (TSRTC), Hyderabad, appearing for

respondent Nos.1 & 2.

2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking

prayer as under:

"to issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent terminating the licence of the petitioner relating to Stall No.KS-3 in Koti/CAC Bus Station, by his order dated 26.02.2024, is highly unjust, arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner had been granted licence by the respondent-TSRTC

for running godown and book shop at Koti/CAC Bus Station in

a small place for a period of five years commencing from

01.07.2022 till 30.06.2027 on payment of licence fee of

Rs.3,500/- per month.

4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that even before

the expiry of licence period i.e., before 30.06.2027, vide the

impugned order dated 26.02.2024 of the Deputy Regional

Manager (O), Charminar Division, Telangana State Road

Transport Corporation, the licence of the petitioner had been

terminated by one month's notice on the ground that the

subject premises are required for public usage. Though the

petitioner has submitted her explanation to the show cause

notice dated 18.01.2024 issued to the petitioner, vide

petitioner's reply dated 20.02.2024, the respondents have not

considered the said explanation. Aggrieved by the impugned

order dated 26.02.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent

corporation, the present writ petition is filed.

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for

respondents draws attention of this Court to Clause 26

(ix) (c) of Deed of Licence which reads as under:

"The licensor reserves the right to terminate the licence by giving one month's notice in case the

premises are required for public usage or for the use of the licensor".

6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents submits that there is no illegality in the impugned

order dated 26.02.2024 and in view of the fact that the

subject premises is required for public usage, the respondents

had been constrained to issue impugned proceedings dated

26.02.2024, terminating the Deed of Licence dated

21.03.2023 executed in favour of the petitioner.

PERUSED THE RECORD.

7. A perusal of the impugned order dated 26.02.2024 of

the respondent No.2 clearly indicates that the explanation of

the petitioner dated 20.02.2024 submitted by the petitioner in

reply to the show cause notice 18.01.2024 issued to the

petitioner by the Deputy Regional Manager (O), Charminar

Division, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation has not

been considered by respondent No.2. Though a perusal of

show notice dated 18.01.2024 issued to the petitioner by the

respondent corporation indicates that the letter dated

12.12.2023 had been the basis for issuing the show cause

notice dated 18.01.2024 to the petitioner the reason

mentioned in the show cause notice is obstruction for free

movement of the commuters had been the cause to issue the

said show cause notice to the petitioner.

8. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in

(2010) 13 SCC 427 in Oryx Fisheries Pvt., Ltd., Vs.

Union of India & Others, in its Head note duly referring

to the relevant paras of the said judgment, observed as

under :

"It is well settled that a quasi-judicial authority, while acting in exercise of its Statutory power must act fairly and must act with an open mind while initiating a show- cause proceeding. A show-cause proceeding is meant to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of making his objection against the proposed charges indicated in the notice. (Para 24).

At the stage of show-cause, the person proceeded against must be told the charges against him so that he can take his defence and prove his innocence. At that stage the authority issuing the charge-sheet, cannot, instead of telling him the charges, confront him with definite conclusions of his alleged guilt. If that is done, as has been done in the present case, the entire

proceeding initiated by the show-cause notice gets vitiated by unfairness and bias and the subsequent proceedings become an idle ceremony. (Para 27) Justice is rooted in confidence and justice is the goal of a quasi-judicial proceeding also. If the functioning of a quasi-judicial authority has to inspire confidence in the minds of those subjected to its jurisdiction, such authority must act with utmost fairness. Its fairness is obviously to be manifested by the language in which charges are couched and conveyed to the person proceeded against.

In the present case, from the show-cause notice it is clear that the third respondent, Deputy Director, MPEDA HAS demonstrated a totally closed mind at the stage of show-cause notice itself. Such a closed mind is inconsistent with the scheme of Rule 43 of the MPEDA Rules. (Para 29).

It is true that the show-cause notice cannot be read hyper technically and it is well settled that it is to be read reasonably. But, while reading a show-cause notice the person who is subject to it must get an impression that he will get an effective opportunity to rebut the allegations contained in the show-cause notice and prove his innocence. If on a reasonable reading of a show-cause notice a person of ordinary prudence gets the feeling that his reply to the show-cause notice will be an empty ceremony and he will merely knock his

head against the impenetrable wall of prejudged opinion, such a show-cause notice does not commence a fair procedure especially when it is issued in a quasi- judicial proceeding under a statutory regulation which promises to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of defence. (para 31) Therefore, while issuing a show-cause notice, the authorities must take care to manifestly keep an open mind as they are to act fairly in adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the person proceeded against and specially when the authority has the power to take a punitive step against the person after giving him a show- cause notice. (para 32) The principle that justice must not only be done but it must eminently appear to be done as well is equally applicable to quasi-judicial proceeding if such a proceeding has to inspire confidence in the mind of those who are subject to it. (para 33)"

9. It is evident on record that Deed of Licence dated

21.03.2023 issued in favour of the petitioner subsists till

30.06.2027 and admittedly, the impugned termination order

dated 26.02.2024 does not discuss the explanation dated

20.02.2024 submitted by the petitioner in response to the

show cause notice dated 18.01.2024 issued by the respondent

corporation to the petitioner and the order impugned dated

26.02.2024 simply states that petitioner's explanation to the

show cause notice for termination of contract dated

20.02.2024 is not convincing. This Court opines that the order

impugned dated 26.02.2024 passed by the Deputy Regional

Manager (O), Charminar Division is without any reasons and

the same had been passed on the basis of letter dated

12.12.2023 mechanically without application of mind

independently by the Deputy Regional Manager (O),

Charminar Division, Telangana State Road Transport

Corporation.

10. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in

(2010) 9 SCC 496 in Kranti Associates Private Limited &

Another v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others at para 47

observed as under :

Para 47 : Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:

(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 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.

(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making,

(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".

11. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in

(2001) 5 SCC 664 in Tandon Brothers Vs. State of West

Bengal & Others at para 34 observed as under :

"Governmental action must be based on utmost good faith, belief and ought to be supported with reason on the basis of the State of Law - if the action is otherwise or runs counter to the same the action cannot be ascribed to be malafide and it would be a plain exercise of judicial power to countenance such action and set the same aside for the purpose of equity, good conscience and justice. Justice of the situation demands action clothed with bonafide reason and necessities of the situation in accordance with the law."

12. The Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of

Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji reported in

(1951) SCC 1088 observed as under :

"We are clear that the public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the Officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the acting's and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and

must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself."

13. Former Chief Justice of India, Late Justice Y.V.

Chandrachud in judgment reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248

in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India held that law

cannot permit any exercise of power by an executive to

keep the reasons undisclosed if the only motive for

doing so is to keep the reasons away from judicial

scrutiny.

14. The Apex Court in case of Steel Authority of India

Limited Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela-I Circle, AIR

2009 Supplement SC 561 observed as under :

"Reason is the heart beat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless".

15. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley Limited) Vs.

Crabtree reported in (1974) ICR 120 (NIRC) it was

observed as under:

"Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons

substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "Inscrutable face of the sphinx" it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their Appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision."

16. The Apex Court in judgment reported in (2010) 3

SCC 732 in Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial

Hall Vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Others at

para 41 observed as under :

"Reason is the heart beat of every conclusion, it introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the order unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum".

17. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, and

circumstances of the case, and the law laid down by the

Apex Court in the judgments (referred to and extracted

above) the writ petition is allowed and the impugned

order of termination of contract dated 26.02.2024

issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Regional Manager

(O), Charminar Division, Telangana State Road

Transport Corporation is hereby set aside and the

respondents are directed to re-consider the explanation

dated 20.02.2024 submitted by the petitioner to the

show cause notice dated 18.01.2024 issued by

respondent No.2, in accordance to law, and pass