Allowed

M/s. Sree Srinivasa Stone Crusher v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Dec 2020WP/23009/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi held that the dismissal of a revision petition without recording reasons violated principles of natural justice. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court ruled that Rule 35-A did not dispense with the requirement to record reasons.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order under revision was set aside and the matter was remitted to the appropriate authority to pass a reasoned order considering grounds of revision.

M/s. Sree Srinivasa Stone Crusher Vs State of… — RTI and Transparency | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI WRIT PETITION No.23009 of 2020

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned Memo dated 05.06.2020, issued by the 1^st respondent dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner, challenging demand notice dated 10.08.2020, issued by the 4^th respondent demanding Rs.2,12,250/towards normal seigniorage fee and penalty of Rs.10,61,250/-.

¶4

Petitioner is a stone crusher unit and is also engaged in the business of civil contract works and carrying out civil contract works of various Government Departments. After execution of civil works, the bills were released after deduction of seiginiorage fee. While so, on 25.09.2013, the officials of Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Tirupathi, inspected the Unit, took measurements of road metal stock available at the crusher premises and arrived at 4,245 CBM of road metal aggregates and directed respondent No.4 to collect normal seigniorage fee along with penalty; accordingly, respondent No.4 issued demand notice levying Rs.2,12,250/- towards normal seigniorage fee and penalty of Rs.10,61,250/-; challenging the same, revision petition was filed and, vide the impugned order, revision petition was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶5

¶6

Smt S.Pranathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, though the petitioner filed revision, along with details of seigniorage charges which were deducted from the work bills, the impugned order was passed without considering the said material. She further submits that no reasons were assigned while dismissing the revision petition, and seeks to remand the matter for fresh consideration. In support of her contention, she relied upon the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶7

‘ S.N.Mukherji vs. Union of India¹ ’.

¶8

Learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology on the other hand, submits that, pursuant to the demand notice, no explanation has been given by the petitioner and hence the remarks of the Director of Mines and Geology were called for and based on the said remarks, the revision petition was disposed of.

¶9

As seen from the revisional order, at paragraph 2, the grounds of revision are extracted and, at paragraph 3, the remarks of the Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam have been extracted.

¶10

Paragraphs 4 to 7 of the revisional order read thus:

¶11

“4. With the above, the Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam has requested for dismissal of the Revision Application on merits as per Rules. 5. In order to dispose off the Revision Application, a personal hearing Was conducted on 07.01.2020 duly giving reasonable opportunity for personal hearing to the Revision Petitioner.

¶12

1 1990(4) SCC 594

¶13

¶14

After hearing the arguments on both sides, the Revisional authority hereby dismissed the revision application of M/s.Sree Sreenivasa Stone Crusher, Prop:Sri Y.Sreedhar Naidu, Chittoor District and uphold the demand notice No.2414/V&E/NR/TPT/2013 dated 13.06.2014 of the Assistant Director of Miens and Geology, Chittoor. 7. Accordingly, the Revision Application is disposed off under Rule 35-A of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and the Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Ibrahimpatnam shall take further necessary action in the matter.”

¶15

As seen from the above paragraphs, there is no discussion with regard to the grounds raised by the petitioner in the revision petition and no reasons were given in support of the order under revision.

¶16

In S.N. Mukherjee’ s case (1 supra), the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, at paras 38 and 39 held as follows:

¶17

“38. The object underlying the rules of natural justice "is to prevent miscarriage of justice" and secure "fair play in action." As pointed out earlier the requirement about recording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decisionmaking. Keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion, that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The extent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework where under jurisdiction has been conferred on the administrative authority. With regard to the exercise of a particular power by an administrative authority including exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions the legislature, while conferring the said power, may feel that it would not be in the larger public interest that the reasons for the order passed by the

¶18

¶19

administrative authority be recorded in the order and be communicated to the aggrieved party and it may dispense with such a requirement. It may do so by making an express provision to that affect as those contained in the Administrative Procedure Act, 1946 of U.S.A. and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, 1977 of Australia whereby the orders passed by certain specified authorities are excluded from the ambit of the enactment. Such an exclusion can also arise by necessary implication from the nature of the subject matter, the scheme and the provisions of the enactment. The public interest underlying such a provision would out-weight the salutary purpose served by the requirement to record the reasons. The said requirement cannot, therefore, be insisted upon in such a case.

¶20

For the reasons aforesaid, it must be concluded that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision.”

¶21

Under Rule 35-A of the Rules, requirement of giving reasons is not expressly or by necessary implication dispensed with.

¶22

In ‘ Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal² ’, while relying upon the S.N. Mukherjee ’s case (1 supra), Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that ‘the requirement to record reasons is a principle of natural justice and a check against the arbitrary exercise of power by judicial and quasi-judicial bodies.’

¶23

2 2019(16) SCALE 40

¶24

¶25

In ‘ Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs Masood Ahemd Khan³ ’,

¶26

the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

¶27

“51….Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:

¶28

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

¶29

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

¶30

(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.

¶31

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

¶32

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

¶33

(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.

¶34

(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.

¶35

(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.

¶36

(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.

¶37

(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

¶38

(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.

¶39

(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or 'rubber-stamp

¶40

3 (2010) 9 SCC 496

¶41

¶42

reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.

¶43

(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 Harv L. Rev. 731-37.)

¶44

(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decisionmaking, 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], EHRR at p. 562, para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, 'adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions'.

¶45

(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'."

¶46

This Court in ‘ Kalari Nagabhushana Rao vs. the

¶47

Collector, Panchayat Wing, Guntur⁴ ’, held as follows:

¶48

“The very practice of calling for reports or para-wise remakes on the appeal memorandum by the statutory quasi-judicial appellate tribunal or authority unless specifically provided for in the statute or the rules framed thereunder, must be deprecated. Such a procedure is not only unjust and improper but would also prejudice to a great extent the case of the very person who had come to the appellate tribunal with a definite case that what has been done by the original authority was illegal incorrect and unjust. Such a practice may be there for a number of years but it must be put an end to. The earlier such practices are given up, the better for the concerned parties and people at large. Proper and independent exercise of powers and functions by a statutory quasi-judicial appellate authority or tribunal is essential and necessary for the administration of justice.”

¶49

4 AIR 1978 AP 444 = 1987(2) ALT 217

¶50

¶51

In view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above referred judgment, the impugned order under revision is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the appropriate authority to pass a reasoned order, after considering the grounds of revision, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶53

_________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶54

Date:16.12.2020 usd

M/s. Sree Srinivasa Stone Crusher v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sree Srinivasa Stone Crusher v. State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Smt. Gochipothula Naga Jyothi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Emani Sudha Rani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

L Ramesh Vs the State of Ap

Putta Jagadeesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S Sree Srinivasa Stone Crusher Vs the State of Ap

M.Satyavathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh