Telangana High Court
Smt. Burra Soundarya vs The State Of Telangana on 21 November, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos. 20322 OF 2011 & 3576 of 2020
AND
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 287 OF 2018
COMMON ORDER:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice J.Sreenivas Rao)
The Writ Petition No.20322 of 2011 is filed seeking the
following relief:
" ....to issue an order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records
relating to the order No. 1772/2009/A2 dated 18.03.2011
passed by the second respondent and confirming the said
order by the first respondent in G.O.Rt.No.1084 dated
12.07.2011 and quash the same holding as highly arbitrary,
bad, illegal and violative of natural justice and pass ........"
2. The Writ Petition No.3576 of 2020 is filed seeking the
following relief:
"............to issue an order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring
that the action of the fifth respondent in issuing notice Rc.
No.2731/2018 dated 02.01.2020 directing the petitioner to
deposit an amount of Rs.48,75,925/- is highly arbitrary, bad,
illegal and without authority and pass......."
3. The Writ Petition (PIL) No.287 of 2018 is filed seeking the
following relief:
".......to issue any writ, order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring
the action of the official respondents 1 to 4 are not
discharging their statutory functions assigned to them under
the provisions of Telangana State Panchayat Raj Act in
recovering an amount of Rs.48,75,925/- from the 5th
respondent misappropriated by her during her tenure as
Sarpanch, Bhupalpally Grampanchayat, Jayashankar
Bhupalpally District (Warangal District) from 2006-07 to
2009-10 in pursuant to the orders issued by the 2nd
respondent dated 18.03.2011 in Order No.1772/2009/A2
holding that the 5th respondent misappropriated in all
Rs.49,41,322/- out of which an amount of Rs.65,397/- were
remitted by the 5th respondent, the balance amount of
Rs.48,75,925/- are to be recovered and the said order was
confirmed in Appeal vide G.O.Rt.No.1084, Panchayat Raj and
Rural Development (Pts.II) Department dated 12.07.2011 as
illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct respondents 1 to 4
to take steps for recovery of amount of Rs.48,75,925/- from
the 5th respondent and to pass....."
4. The issue in all the three matters is interconnected with each
other. Hence, all the matters are disposed of by this common order
with the consent of the respective parties.
5. Heard Sri N.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner
in W.P.No.20322 of 2011, Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel
for the petitioner in W.P.No.3576 of 2020 and respondent No.5 in
W.P.(PIL) No.287 of 2018, Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for
the petitioner in W.P.(PIL) No.287 of 2018, Sri Katram Muralidhar
Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on
behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 5 in W.P.No.3576 of 2020,
respondent Nos.2 and 4 in W.P.(PIL) No.287 of 2018, Sri P.Ashok
Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj
and Rural Development Department appearing on behalf of
respondent Nos.1 to 4 in W.P.No.20322 of 2011, respondent Nos.2
to 4 in W.P.No.3576 of 2020 and respondent Nos.1 and 3 in
W.P.(PIL) No.287 of 2018.
6. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to
as they are arrayed in W.P.No.20322 of 2011.
7. Brief facts of case:
7.1 The petitioner averred that she was elected as Sarpanch of
Gram Panchayat, Bhoopalpalli on 29.07.2006 in the general
elections to the local bodies. While continuing as Sarpanch, a
complaint was lodged by the Upa-Sarpanch and some of the Ward
Members against the petitioner alleging that she has committed
some irregularities. Basing on the said complaint, respondent No.2
issued show cause notice No.A1772/A2/2009 on 31.05.2010
directing the petitioner to submit explanation. Pursuant to the
same, the petitioner submitted explanation on 16.06.2010. Basing
on the said explanation, respondent No.2 passed Order on
30.06.2010 suspending the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.1606 of 2010.
While things stood thus, respondent No.2 issued show cause notice
on 25.01.2011 exercising the powers conferred under 249(1) of the
A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on
various allegations including misappropriation of funds and directed
the petitioner to submit explanation. Pursuant to the same,
petitioner submitted applications on 03.02.2011, 18.02.2011,
07.03.2011 and 14.03.2011 to the respondent No.2 and requested
them to grant time for submission of explanation. However,
respondent No.2 passed order on 18.03.2011 removing the
petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, by exercising the powers
conferred under Section 249(1) of the Act, vide Proceedings
No.1772/2009/A2 for misappropriation of an amount of
Rs.48,75,925/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed
appeal before respondent No.1 and the same was dismissed
confirming the order of respondent No.2 vide G.O.Rt.1084
Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (PTS.II) Department dated
12.07.2011. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed
W.P.No.20322 of 2011.
7.2 Petitioner further averred that during the pendency of the
said writ petition, respondent No.2 issued show cause notice on
20.01.2017 directing the petitioner to submit explanation why the
amount of Rs.48,75,925/- should not be recovered from her
pursuant to the order dated 18.03.2011, which was confirmed by
the appellate authority by its order dated 12.07.2011. In response
to the same, the petitioner had submitted explanation on
20.02.2017. Without considering the said explanation and without
passing any order respondent No.2 addressed a letter dated
02.11.2008 to the respondent No.5 to recover the above said
amount. Accordingly, respondent No.5 had issued impugned notice
dated 02.01.2020 under Section 25 of the provisions of the
Telangana Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 for recovery of the amount
of Rs.48,75,925/-. Questioning the above said notice, the petitioner
filed W.P.No.3576 of 2020. Even before filing the above said writ
petition, one Sri N.Rajalinga Murthy filed W.P.(PIL) No.287 of 2018
questioning the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in not recovering
the amount of Rs.48,75,925/- from the petitioner.
8. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner:
8.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner filed statutory appeal exercising the powers conferred
under the Act, questioning the order dated 18.03.2011 before
respondent No.1 in W.P.No.20322 of 2011. The appellate authority
without considering the grounds raised in the appeal simply
confirmed the order of respondent No.2, vide G.O.Rt.No.1084 dated
12.07.2011. The impugned order passed by the respondent No.1
dated 12.07.2011 is in gross violation of the principles of natural
justice and contrary to law.
8.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.3576 of 2020
submitted that basing upon the order dated 12.07.2011 and dated
18.03.2011 only, respondent Nos.2 and 5 in W.P.No.3576 of 2020
have issued notice dated 02.01.2020 under the Telangana Revenue
Recovery Act, 1864 for recovery of amount even without considering
the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause
notice dated 20.01.2017 issued by respondent No.2 and without
passing order and the same is contrary to law.
9. Submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Panchayat Raj:
9.1 Learned Government Pleader submits that respondent No.2
after following the due procedure as contemplated under the
provisions of the Act, passed the order dated 18.03.2011 removing
the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch on the ground of
misappropriation of funds and the appellate authority-respondent
No.1 rightly dismissed the appeal by its order dated 12.07.2011.
10. Submissions of the learned Government Pleader for
Revenue:
10.1 Learned Government Pleader submits that respondent No.5 in
W.P.No.3576 of 2020 has rightly issued notice dated 02.01.2020 for
recovery of amount under the provisions of the Telangana Revenue
Recovery Act, 1864.
Analysis:
11. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and perused the material available on record. It
is an undisputed fact that respondent No.2 while exercising the
powers conferred under the provisions of the Act, 1994 removed the
petitioner from the post of Sarpanch on the ground of
misappropriation of Gram Panchayat funds to an amount of
Rs.48,75,925/- by its order dated 18.03.2011. Aggrieved by the
above said order, the petitioner filed statutory appeal invoking the
provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 249 of the Act before the
appellate authority/respondent No.1 on 01.04.2011. The appellate
authority without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner
and without giving any reasons, dismissed the appeal on
12.07.2011 simply confirmed the order of respondent No.2. It is
relevant to extract the operative portion of the order passed by the
respondent No.1, which reads as follows:
"9. After hearing them and on perusal of the records
made available, it has been observed that the Sarpanch has
misappropriated huge amount of the Gram Panchayat funds
and acted against the procedure prescribed in APPR Act
1994.
10. The Government after careful examination of the
matter and based on the available material in the records
hereby disallows the appeal filed by Smt. Burra Soundarya,
Sarpanch (Removed), Bhoopalpalli Village and Mandal,
Warangal District and the proceedings of the District
Collector (PW), Warangal issued vide reference 1st read above
are hereby confirmed."
12. Thus, the above order clearly reveals that respondent No.1
without giving any reasons much less valid reasons simply
confirmed the order of respondent No.2. It is trite law that the
statutory authority, while exercising the appellate powers, ought to
have considered the grounds, contentions of the parties and the
material on record, and ought to have passed order by giving
reasons.
13. In Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Mashood Ahmed
Khan and others 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court relying upon several
judgments summarizing the discussion held at Para 47 that:
"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.
(2010) 9 SCC 496
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 life blood 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. (See David Shapiro in
Defence of Judicial Candor ((1987) 100 Harvard Law Review
731-37).
n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates
from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the
said requirement is now virtually a component of human
rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence.
See Ruiz Torija v. Spain ((1994) 19 EHRR 553), at para 562
para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford (2001 EWCA Civ
405 (CA), wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European
Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and
intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".
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"."
14. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department,
Works Contract and Leasing, Kota v. Shukla and brothers 2, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 'reason is the heartbeat of every
conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless'.
15. In the instant case, respondent No.1 without assigning any
reasons passed the impugned order dated 12.07.2011 simply
confirming the order of respondent No.2 and the same is in gross
violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to settled
principles of law and the same is liable to be set aside.
16. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by the
respondent No.1 dated 12.07.2011 is set aside and respondent No.1
is directed to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving opportunity
to the petitioner including personal hearing, within a period of two
(2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(2010) 4 SCC 785
17. Insofar as W.P.No.3576 of 2020 is concerned, respondent
No.2 issued show-cause notice dated 20.01.2017 vide Proceedings
No.1772/A2/2009 directing the petitioner to submit explanation as
to why the amount of Rs.48,75,925/- should not be recovered from
the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was removed from
the post of Sarpanch through proceedings dated 18.03.2011 on the
ground of misappropriation of the above said amount and the said
order was confirmed by the appellate authority-Government vide
G.O.Rt.No.1084 dated 12.07.2011. Pursuant to the said show-
cause notice, the petitioner had submitted explanation on
20.02.2017. Respondent No.2, without passing any order on the
said explanation, addressed a letter vide Rc.No.F/2073/2018 dated
02.11.2018 to respondent No.5 to recover the above said amount of
Rs.48,75,925/- under the Telangana Revenue Recovery Act, 1864.
Accordingly, respondent No.5 has issued impugned notice vide
Rc.No.B/2731/2018 dated 02.01.2020 invoking the provisions of
Section 25 of the Telangana Revenue Recovery Act, 1864.
18. By virtue of setting aside the order passed by respondent
No.1 dated 12.07.2011 in W.P.No.20322 of 2011, the impugned
notice dated 02.01.2020 issued by respondent No.5 in W.P.No.3576
of 2020 is also liable to bet set aside and is accordingly set aside. It
is needless to observe that respondent Nos.2 and 5 in W.P.No.3576
of 2020 are entitled to initiate the proceedings against the petitioner
subject to outcome of the result in the appeal filed before
respondent No.1 in W.P.No.20322 of 2011.
19. Insofar as W.P.(PIL)No.287 of 2018 is concerned, in view of
the orders passed in W.P.Nos.20322 of 2011 and 3576 of 2020, the
petitioner is granted liberty to avail the remedies as available under
law subject to the outcome of the result of the appeal filed by the
petitioner before the appellate authority-respondent No.1 in
W.P.No.20322 of 2011.
20. With the above directions, all the writ petitions are disposed
of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall
stand closed.
____________________
ALOK ARADHE, C J
_______________________
J.SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 21.11.2024
PGP
