Allowed

Tamminaina Manamma v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Nov 2023WP/30365/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a suspension order affecting the petitioner's cheque power as a Gram Surpanch. Ex-Parte. The court set aside the unreasoned impugned order, relying on the principle that quasi-judicial authorities must record cogent reasons. The matter was remanded for a reasoned order and personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside; the matter was remanded to the respondent for a reasoned order within two weeks.

Tamminaina Manamma Vs the State of Ap — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.30365 OF 2023

¶4

Dt.23.11.2023

¶5

Between:-

¶6

Smt.Tamminaina Manamma, W/o.Venkata Jaganadha Rao

¶7

… Petitioner

¶8

and

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, and another

¶10

… Respondents Counsel for petitioner : M/s.S.Srinivasa Rao Counsel for respondents : The G.P. for Panchayat Raj Mr.N.Srihari, Standing Counsel

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent Nos.4 to 6 are represented by the learned Standing Counsel.

¶13

Challenging the proceedings dated 15.11.2023 of the 3^rd respondent suspending the cheque power of the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed.

¶14

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was elected as Gram Surpanch of Tadivalasa Village in the year 2021 and discharging her functions without any blemish. He submits that vide show cause notice dated 08.4.2022, the 3^rd respondent directed the petitioner to explain within three days why her cheque drawing power should not be cancelled temporarily, to which the petitioner submitted explanation on 20.4.2023, but no orders were passed thereon. Be that as it may. He further submits that on 09.11.2023, the 3^rd respondent issued a show cause notice wherein it was alleged that the petitioner appears to have refused to pay the bill amount of Rs.6,78,853/- to the Ex-Surpanch and granted three days time for submitting explanation. Stating that a detailed explanation was submitted on 15.11.2023, learned counsel contends that without considering the said explanation in proper perspective and without assigning any reasons, the 3^rd respondent passed the order impugned in the writ petition, suspending the petitioner’s cheque drawing power for a period of three months. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order dated 15.11.2023 is not

¶16

¶17

sustainable as it is bereft of reasons and on that ground the same is liable to be set aside.

¶18

In view of the settled Law that the quasi judicial authorities are required to pass orders containing cogent reasons after due consideration of the material, which are absent in the present case, learned Government Pleader fairly states that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remitted to the 3^rd respondent for passing appropriate reasoned order. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to the decision in S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India¹ , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

¶19

“36. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasijudicial 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 recording 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

¶20

1 (1990) 4 SCC 594

¶21

¶22

administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a court of law.”

¶23

Considering the submissions made and as the impugned order was passed without assigning any reasons as to why the explanation submitted by the petitioner merits no acceptance, the same is set aside. The matter is remanded to the 3^rd respondent for passing appropriate reasoned order by taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner and after giving opportunity of personal hearing to her, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶25

________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶26

November 23, 2023. vasu

Tamminaina Manamma v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamminaina Manamma v. the State of Ap

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

Manda Suri Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Manda Suri Babu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M Adilaxmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Nallapaneni Kondapas Naidu Vs Sasi.Bhushan Kumar

Tavva Nagamani Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Danda Anil Kumar Vs the Election Commission of India