Remanded

Dabbara Venkata Narayana v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Aug 2023WP/10046/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order dismissing the petitioner's revision without reasons, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted to the appellate authority to reconsider the applicability of certain rules and penalty calculations within two months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 15.03.2021 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the case and dispose within two months.

Dabbara Venkata Narayana Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 10046 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dabbara Venkata Narayana, S/o. D.Narayana, Aged -?h-'ut 47. years, R/o.16241, sreenivasapuram, Tadipatri, Ananthapuram District, Andhra Pradesh

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

. 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, (Mines and Geology), Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi i

¶12

2. The Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Sri Anjaneya Towers, D.No.7-104, B-Block, 5th and 6th Floors, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada-521456

¶13

3. The Asst.Director of Mines and Geology, Regional VigilanceSquad (FAC) Narasimha Reddy Nagar, Railway Station Road, Kurnool, A.P

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to be issued to the 2nd respondent calling for the records in D.Dis.Proceedings No.8902/D10/2020 dated.15.03.2021 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner herein without passing arty speaking or well reasoned order, purportedly to be basing on Rule 35 of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (APMMC Rules) and quash the same as it is arbitrary, illegal, devoid of any merits, contrary to the provisions of Mines and Minerals ( Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (APMMC Rules), contrary to the principles of Natural justice, besides being violative of the petitioner's rights guranteed under Article 14, Article 19 (1) (g) and Article 300 A of the constitution of India.

¶16

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent herein to release the petitioner's Multi-Axle Goods Vehicle ( Ashok Leyland Ltd Make) bearing Registration No.AP 02 TE 3667 along with the Rough granite blocks seized and kept at APSRTC.Pathikonda depot

¶18

IA NO:3OF 2021

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to impugned order dated 15.03.2021 passed by the 2nd Respondent vide D.Dis.Proceedings No.8902/D10/2020 pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶25

WRIT PETITION No. 10046 OF 2021

¶26

Between:

¶27

Dabbara Venkata Narayana, S/o. D.Narayana, Aged about 47 years, R/o. 16-241, Sreenivasapuram, Tadipatri, Ananthapuram District, Andhra Pradesh

¶28

...Petitioner

¶29

Versus

¶30

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, (Mines and Geology), Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi and two others. !

¶31

...Respondents

¶32

Counsels for the petitioner : Sri Ch.Gunaranjan Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : GP for Mines and Geology

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶35

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶36

"... to pass an order or orders or direction more particularly one in die nature of Writ of Certiorari to be issued to the 2'“* respondent calling for the records in D.Dis. Proceedings NO.8902/D 10/2020 -dated 15.03.2021 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner herein without passing any speaking or well reasoned order purportedly to be basing on Rule 35 of A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (APMMC Rules) and quash the same as it is arbitrary, illegal, devoid of any merits, contrary to the provisions of Mines and Minerals Development and Reflation Act, 1957

¶37

¶38

Page 2 of 12

¶39

SRS,J W.P.No.l0046of2021

¶40

Petitioner’s vehicle bearing No. AP 02 TE 3667 was intercepted on 06.06.2020 by the Assistant Commissioner of Mines and Geology, Kurnool - respondent No.3. Show-cause notice vide NO.2289/RVS-KNL/2019 dated 11.06.2020, was issued by respondent No.3 calling for explanation. Petitiqner explanation. gave his explanation on 22.06.2020. Demand notice aide notice NO.2289/RVS-KNL/2019. dated 30.09.2020 was issued by respondent No.3 whereby the authorily asked the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.21,66.990/- in total. Petitioner initially filed appeal under Rule 35 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short the Rules!. Respondent No.2 by proceedings No.8902/D10/2020 dated 12.02.2021, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed W.P.No.4609 of 2021. The said writ petition was allowed, remitting the matter to the 2n‘» respondent to pass orders. Respondent No.2 by proceedings No. 8902/D10/2020 dated 15’.03.2021 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same the above writ petition is filed.

¶41

Page 3 of 12

¶42

SRS, J W.P. No.10046 of 2021

¶43

¶44

J /

¶45

Heard Sri N.Sai Phanindra Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Ch.Gunaranjan, learned counsel for the -petitioner and Sri K.Naveen Kumar, leiarned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3.

¶46

!■

¶47

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that petitioner’s vehicle was seized on 06.06.2020. However, penalty was imposed on the petitioner basing on the amended Rule 26 (3) (iii) of the APMMC Rules, issued by G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 01.07.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that on 06.06.2020, authorities recovered 18.324 cubic meters of load. Basing on the way bills said to have been received from the driver, authorities imposed penalty in respect in respect of 121.276 cubic meters and tiie same is not permissible. He would submit that respondent No.2 without considering these aspects dismissed the revision.

¶49

5. Learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology would contend that respondent No.2 on careful consideration of all the grounds of revision passed the order impugned. He would submit that respondent No.2, in fact, considered all the aspects and passed the order.

?• ■

1 i

Page 4 of 12

SRSJ W.P.No.l0046of2021

¶55

As seen from the order impugned vide proceedings NO.89O2/D10/2020 dated 15.03.2021, respondent No.2 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. The order is running into two pages without any paragraph numbers. The operative portion of the order passed by respondent No.2 is extracted herewith:

¶56

“In view cf the above circumstances and as per the powers delegated under Rule 35 of Andhra Pradesh Minor I Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 the appeal petition filed Sri D.Venkata Narayana is here by dismissed and allowed the appellant to file the Revision Application before the Revisional Authority on the request. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, (RVS), Kumool and Dy. Director of Mines and Geology, Kumool are directed to take necessary action in the matter as per rules. ” 7. Respondent No.2 did not consider any of the grounds raised by the petitioner while dismissing the revision under Rule 35 of the Rules. In S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union of India^ the Hon*510 Supreme Court held as follows:

¶57

"It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function it

I I

4990 (4) see 594

Page 5 of 12

SRS,J W.P.No.l0046of2021

¶62

?•

¶63

-must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial . order must be supported by reasons.

¶64

If courts of law are to be replaced by administrative authorities and tribunals, as indeed, in some kinds of cases, with the proliferation of Administrative Law they may have to be so replaced, it is essential that administrative authorities and tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them. Then along administrative authorities and tribunals, exercising quasi-judicial function will be able to justify their existence and carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence in the adjudicatory process. The rule requiring reasons to be .given in support of an order is, like the principle of audi alteram partera, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere I pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law."

¶65

¶66

At Para 35, the HonTjle Supreme Court held as follows:

¶67

“Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an -order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the re cording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons, be recorded should govern the -decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the

¶68

Page 6 of 12

¶69

SRS, J W.P.No.10046 of 2021

¶70

to appeal, revision passed at the original stage”™? 5!"*" “ revisional authority agrees with' " contained in the oriler under cha?e^e.? 9. At Paras 38 and 39 the Honhie Apex Court held as

¶71

follows:

¶72

1“^' auth?ririe5sS K’Sid^* Xo^ X SSst^S^ au^Sies'^'F? XtanX^e'p^XXtt:- 7“' ***** Haff'S regard to the exercSi of J® authority. With administrative authoritv POwer by an judicial or while conferring the said ^®e‘slature, JS2LXl?<X’sr '-suthority he recorii^ ta V'oX'^aS't'

¶73

Page7ofl2

¶74

SRSJ W.P.No.l0046of2021

¶75

¶76

communicated to the aggrieved party and it may dispense with such a requirement. It may do so by makiqg 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 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 outweight the salutary purpose served by the requirement to record the reasons. The said requirement cannot, therefore, be insisted upon in such a case.

¶77

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.”

¶78

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

¶79

In Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra AgarwaP, while relying upon the S.N.Mukharjee’s ease, 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’.

¶80

' (2020) 5 see 481: (2019) 1€ Scale 40 I 4

¶81

SRS, J W.P.No.10046 of 2021

¶82

Page 8 of 12

¶83

In Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Masood Ahmed

¶84

Khan and Otherss. while considering the ambit of reasons,

¶85

summarized as follows:

¶86

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

¶87

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

¶88

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle ofjustice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

¶89

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

¶90

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

¶91

(fi Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing pnnciples of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

¶92

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

¶93

i i ’2010(9) see 496 I

¶94

Page 9 of 12

¶95

SRS, J W.P.No.lOtMSof 2021

¶96

. i

¶97

(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 ofjustice.

¶98

(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.

¶99

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

¶100

¶101

(fc) 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.

¶102

(Z) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. Pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.

¶103

I.'

¶104

(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 hut also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor 1(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37] .)

¶105

!•

¶106

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

Page 10 of 12

SRS, J W.P.No.10046 of 2021

¶112

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 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)] , 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”.

¶113

(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”.

¶114

A perusal of order passed by the respondent doesn’t contain reasons. Even the 2”“ respondent did not consider the grounds pleaded by the petitioner. Since the order passed by respondent No.2 does not contain any reasons, order impugned dated 15.03.2021 in proceedings No.8902/D10/2020 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the 2"“ respondent. Respondent No.2 shall consider whether the amended Rule 26 (3) (iii) of the Rules would apply to the facts of the case or not. Authority shall also consider imposing of penalty based on the bills of the vehicle seized at the time of interception in the absence of seizure of stock. Respondent No.2 shall also consider the release of vehicle, in case of application being filed by the petitioner

¶115

{

¶116

■Page 11 of 12

¶117

SRSJ W;P.No.l0046of2021

¶118

before the authority, strictly as per rules. The 2"“ respondent shall dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶119

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶120

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶121

stand dismissed.

¶122

SD/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR i /

¶123

//TRUE COPY//

¶124

SrcWN OFFICER

¶125

To, 1. The Secretary, (Mines and Geology), State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi 2. The Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Sri Anjaneya Towers, D.No.7-104, B-Block, Sth and 6th Floors, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada-521456 3. The AsstDirector of Mines and Geology, Regional VigilanceSquad (FAC) • Narasimha Reddy Nagar, Railway Station Road, Kurnool, A.P 4. OneCCto SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN Advocate JOPUC] 5. TwoCCsto GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies GSR

M 130 ft 0

GSR

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/08/2023

ORDER WP.No.10046 of 2021
q\io

¶131

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶132

OfAiMO
I 0 9 OCT 2023 m

Dabbara Venkata Narayana v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dabbara Venkata Narayana v. The 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sadhu Adinarayana Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kadugula Rajulu, Vs The State of A.P.

M. Narayana Chary, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

C Venkataramaiah Vs the State of Ap

Smt. G. Kamalamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nimmagadda Vijaya Bhaskara Rao Vs the State of Ap