Telangana High Court

M/S.Akshya Enter Prises vs The State Of Telangana on 3 June, 2024

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

        HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                WRIT PETITION No.2595 OF 2024

ORDER:

Heard Miss. Vladimeer Khatoon, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of petitioner and Sri Gaddam

Srinivas, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf

of respondent Nos. 2 to 7.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking

prayer as under:

" ..... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.7 issuing the Proceedings No.DSP/30(1)/2023-JGTL, dated 16.12.2023 is highly illegal, unwarranted highly arbitrary, unfair, unjust, irrational, unlawful and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitute of India and consequently to set aside the same and pass such order or orders...."

3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the

averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed

by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition,

is as under:

a) It is the case of the petitioner that, the Petitioner

entered in to Contract with 4th Respondent on 15.09.2018 for

SN, J

WP_2595_2024

the work of Cleaning and Washing of Buses along with Parking

Duties at Jagtial TSRTC Depot and the petitioner sought

minimum wages rates which is approximately equivalent

amount of Rs.2,09,902/- as monthly Remuneration from the

Respondent Corporation for undertaking the said work which

was accepted by the Respondent Corporation.

b) Further, the 4th Respondent representing the Owner of

Jagtial Depot is willing to allow the Petitioner as a Contractor

for Cleaning, Sweeping and Washing of buses along with

Parking Duties, in Garage of the Depot for a period of

Three(3) Years w.e.f 15.09.2018 to 14.09.2021 on a monthly

remuneration payable to the Petitioner as per the terms and

conditions set out herein which the Petitioner has accepted.

The rates fixed are based on the minimum wages (Including

PF/ESI/EDLF) & 10% profit margin per person per month). As

per the above-mentioned contract, the Petitioner has to

provide 13 Un Skilled Labour to Carryout Washing & Sweeping

and Minimum Washing Programme (MWP) of buses and 01

Semi Skilled exclusive for Supervising work spot and 04

SN, J

WP_2595_2024

Skilled persons to carryout Parking Duties and should also

provide Weekly Off relievers.

c) It is the case of the petitioner that, vide communication

Letter dated 14.09.2021 issued by the Personnel Office,

Karimnagar Region to the 7th Respondent, it came to light that

the 6th Respondent has accorded sanction for extension of the

contract work of Cleaning, Sweeping and Washing of Buses

with parking drivers at Jagtial Depot to the Petitioner based

on the satisfactory performance and the said contract was

further extended for Two(2)years w.e.f 15.09.2021 to

14.09.2021 duly providing man power of Thirteen(11+2)Un-

Skilled, One(1), Semi-Skilled and Three(3) Skilled (Parking

Drivers) persons with all terms and conditions of previous

agreement.

d) Further, the Petitioner made a representation

dated 13.10.2022 before the respondent authority to repay

the amount of 2 Un-Skill worker wages for the month April,

2022 to May,2022. The said representation was received and

acknowledged on 14.10.2022 but no action was taken.

Thereafter, the 7th Respondent issued Recovery Notice No.

SN, J

WP_2595_2024

DSP/ 30(1)/ 2023-JGTL dated 06.02.2023 to the Petitioner,

stating that on verification of the case it is observed that an

amount of Rs.4,82,504/- excess wages was drawn to the

Petitioner on allowing two (02) un skilled labour from 2021 to

till date. However, the respondents had taken workers upon

clear mentioning in the muster rolls approved by the

Asst.Engineer(MECH). In response to the said recovery notice,

the petitioner had filed representations dated 06.03.2023 and

27.06.2023 before the respondents, but the respondents

failed to consider the same.

e) It is the specific case of the petitioner that, when the fleet

is reduced at depot, the authorities have to inform the same

to the Petitioner by duly giving notice to reduce the

manpower, however, in the present case, the Respondent

authorities failed to issue any notice to reduce manpower and

account of reduction of fleet. Moreover, the Respondent

officials without bringing it to the notice of the Petitioner,

have recovered the amount from the bills of the petitioner and

the Petitioner did not receive any notice from the Respondent

SN, J

WP_2595_2024

Corporation to reduce the manpower basing on the Circular

NO.23/2011-MED, dated 29.06.2011.

f) Aggrieved by the said recovery notice dated 06.03.2023,

the petitioner had filed W.P No. 2461 of 2023 and the same

was disposed of vide order dated 05.09.2023, directing the

respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner

dated 06.03.2023 and 27.06.2023 in response to the notice

dated 06.02.2023. Subsequent to the order dated

05.09.2023, the 7th respondent issued the Proceedings

No.DSP/30(1)/ 2023-JGTL dated. 16.12.2023 in mechanical

manner without verifying the workers Mustor Rolls/Workers

attendance register signed by the Asst.Engineer(MECH) under

the supervision of the Garage supervisor and bills submitted

by the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the said proceedings dated

16.12.2023, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. This Court vide its order dated 05.09.2023 passed

in W.P.No.24641 of 2023, in particular para Nos. 3 and

4 observed as under:

"3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents brings to the notice of this Court that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not within the

SN, J

WP_2595_2024

time stipulated as per the notice No.DSP/30(1)/2023- JGTL dated 06.02.2023 issued by the Office of the Depot Manager, Jagtial, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and the petitioner has submitted a reply on 06.03.2023 and reminder again on 27.06.2023 which has been acknowledged by respondent authority on 06.03.2023 and on 27.06.2023.

4. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 06.03.2023 and 27.06.2023 forwarded by the petitioner in response to the notice No.DSP/30(1)/2023-JGTL dated 06.02.2023 in accordance to law within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs."

5. A bare perusal of the order impugned passed by the

Respondent No.7 vide proceedings No.DSP/30(1)/2023-JGTL,

dated 16.12.2023 clearly indicates that the said order is not a

reasoned speaking order and none of the pleas put-forth by

the petitioner are neither discussed nor considered.

6. Few Judgments of the Apex Court on the point of

recording of reasons.

a. 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 :

SN, J

WP_2595_2024

"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."

b. 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.

SN, J

WP_2595_2024

(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.

SN, J

WP_2595_2024

(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".

c. The Supreme Court in case of Commissioner

of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji reported in

(1951) SCC 1088 observed as under :

SN, J

WP_2595_2024

"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.

d. Former Chief Justice of India, Late Justice

Y.V. Chandrachud in judgment reported in (1978) 1 SCC

248 in Menaka 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.

e. 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".

SN, J

WP_2595_2024

f. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley Limited) Vs.

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

observed

"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."

g. 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".

SN, J

WP_2595_2024

7. Taking into consideration the fact borne on record

that the impugned order dated 16.12.2023,

No.DSP/30(1)/2023-JGTL passed by Respondent No.7

is devoid of any reasons, the said impugned order is set

aside and the writ petition is disposed of directing the

7th respondent to re-consider the representations of the

petitioner dated 06.03.2023 and 27.06.2023 forwarded

by the petitioner in response to the notice dated

06.02.2023 issued by the 7th respondent to the

petitioner in accordance with law within a period of