Allowed

Babita v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2019WRIC/29561/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition under Article 226, quashing a non-speaking order cancelling a cooperative society member's nomination. The Court held the order was arbitrary for lacking recorded reasons and violated natural justice principles.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order passed on 30.8.2019 by the Joint Commissioner cancelling the petitioner's nomination has been quashed with liberty to pass a fresh order after notice and hearing.

Babita Vs State of U P and 3 Others — Cooperative Societies | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29561 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Babita Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ashwani Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondent and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.8.2019 passed by the Joint Commissioner/Joint Registrar, Saharanpur Mandal, Saharanpur, whereby the petitioner's nomination to Committee of Management of the Society in question has been cancelled.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the pleadings raised in the writ petition has advanced the argument that the order passed by the Joint Commissioner/Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Saharanpur dated 30.8.2019 is absolutely non-speaking order as it does not record any reason as to why once the petitioner was earlier nominated to the Committee of Management under the order dated 16.8.2018, he has come to cancel the same by the order impugned.

¶8

We made a query from the learned Standing Counsel as to what were the considerations that have weighed the decision of the Joint Commissioner in passing the order impugned, learned Standing Counsel is not in a position to support the order itself as it is sans reason. It is a settled principle of law that an order can constitute to be an order if it assigns reasons for passing the same. Even in administrative exercise of power by the authority concerned, it is required to follow the procedure in consonance with principles of natural justice and should have traces of due process of law. We find both these aspects quietly lacking in the order impugned and, therefore, on the face of it the order cannot be not sustained.

¶9

In case of Rashmi Metaliks Limited and Another v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 95, considering the aspect of judicial review in case of administrative action, the Apex Court held that if the reasons are not contained in the order, it is bad.

¶10

Again in the case of T.P.Senkumar. IPS v. Union of India and Others, (2017) 6 SCC 801, the Apex Court has held that an administrative order must be judged by reason mentioned therein and cannot supplemented by the reason through affidavit or otherwise in subsequent court proceedings.

¶11

Further in the case of Mangalam Organics Ltd. v. Union of India (2017) 7 SCC 221 vide taking note of the limited scope of judicial review of administrative action, the Court did carve out an exception if an order is passed with /an extraneous purpose, upon extraneous consideration or arbitrary without applying its mind to the relevant consideration or were it is not guided by norms which are relevant to the object already achieved under Artice 14 of the Constitution.

¶12

Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 30.8.2019 passed by the Joint Commissioner, respondent no.2 is quashed.

¶13

However, liberty rests with the respondent concerned to pass order afresh after putting the petitioner to notice and giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶14

(Ajit Kumar,J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 18.9.2019/NS

Babita v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babita v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jile Singh Vs the State of U.P. and Others

Anjani Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy Panchayat Raj and Others

Ram Babu Kanaujiya Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ram Jeet Yadav Vs National Thormal Power Corporation and Another

Ramesh Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ashok Kumar Vs Union of India Ministry of Petroleum and 2 Others