Quashed

Amutha v. the District Collector / Chairman

Madras HC8 Jul 2024WP/16749/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging cancellation of house allotment under a welfare scheme. Court found no show cause notice or opportunity to rebut evidence was given. Impugned orders set aside as violative of natural justice; parties left to follow due process.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of cancellation and possession call set aside. Parties free to act following due process.

Amutha Vs the District Collector / Chairman — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No. 16749 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶6

W.P. No. 16749 of 2024 and W.M.P. Nos. 18403,18404 and 18405 of 2024

Amutha

… Petitioner

-vs-

The District Collector and Chairman, District Rural Development Agency, Villupuram.

¶11

The Block Development Officer, Vaanur, Panchayat Union, Villupuram District.

¶12

The Tahsildar, Vaanur Taluk,Villupuram District. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the first respondent made in proceedings in Se. Mu. Aa. No. Aa10/641/2010 dated 28.04.2023 and the consequential order dated 19.02.2024 of the Second Respondent in Na. Ka. No. A3/2005/2023 and quash the same.

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

1/10

¶16

W.P. No. 16749 of 2024

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr. M. Dinesh For Respondents 1 and 3 : Mr.M. Venkateswaran Special Government Pleader, For Respondent-2 :Mrs.R.L.Karthika, Government Advocate

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the first respondent made in proceedings in Se. Mu. Aa. No. Aa10/641/2010 dated 28.04.2023 and the consequential order dated 19.02.2024

¶20

of the Second Respondent in Na. Ka. No. A3/2005/2023 and quash the same.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that the First Respondent by Proceedings in Na. Ka. No. Aa10/641/2010 dated 03.04.2022 had allotted House No. 75 in

¶22

the Periyar Ninaivu Samathuvapuram Scheme in Kozhuvari Panchayat Union in Villupuram District to the Petitioner which contains the following conditions:-

¶23

4/ rkj;Jtg[uj;jpy; gadhspfs; epue;jukhf Fonau 2/10

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P. No. 16749 of 2024

¶26

ntz;Lk; mt;thW Fonawj;jtWk; gadhspfspd;

¶27

gl;lhf;fis epge;jid kPwy; fhuzkhf uj;J bra;ag;gLk;

¶28

vd bjuptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/

¶29

8/ gadhsp xJf;fg;gl;l tPl;oy; epue;jukhf FoapUf;f ntz;Lk;/ bjhlu;e;J K:d;W khj';fSf;F nkw;gl;L xJf;fg;gl;l tPl;oy; gadhsp trpf;fhtpl;lhYk;. my;yJ tPl;il thliff;F tpl;lhYk; gadhspf;F tH';fg;gl;l tPl;Lkid kw;Wk; tPL Mfpatw;wpw;fhd xJf;fPL khtl;l Ml;rpj; jiytuhy; ,uj;J bra;ag;gl;L jFjpa[s;s ntW gadhspf;F kW xJf;fPL bra;ag;gLk;/ ”

¶30

According to the First Respondent, the Petitioner was not present in

¶31

that house at the time of inspection on 30.08.2022 and the electricity consumption reading also revealed that the said house was not in use, and in such circumstances, the First Respondent by Proceedings in Se. Mu. Aa. No. Aa10/641/2010 dated 28.04.2023 has cancelled the allotment of the said house made in favour of the Petitioner, and the Second Respondent by Proceedings in Na. Ka. No. A3/2005/2023 dated 19.02.2024 has called upon the Petitioner to hand over possession of that house. In that backdrop, this Writ Petition has been

¶32

filed challenging the said orders.

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

3/10

¶35

W.P. No. 16749 of 2024

¶36

4.It is trite law that any administrative action which entails civil consequences has to be made consistently with the rules and natural justice, meaning thereby that the person concerned must be informed of the case with supporting evidence against her and she must be given a fair opportunity to meet the case an adverse decision is taken.

¶37

5.It would be beneficial in this context to refer to decision of the Hon'ble

¶38

Supreme Court of India in the decision in Deepak Ananda Patil -vs- State of Maharashtra (Order dated 04.01.2023 in Civil Appeal Nos. 88-89 of 2023), which reads as follows:-

¶39

20. It is a well-established principle of

¶40

administrative law that an adjudicatory body cannot

¶41

base its decision on any material unless the person

¶42

against whom it is sought to be utilized has been apprised of it and given an opportunity to respond to it. Surveying the precedents extensively, MP Jain

¶43

& SN Jain's treatise on Principles of Administrative Law notes that:

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

4/10

¶46

W.P. No. 16749 of 2024

¶47

“If the adjudicatory body is going to rely on any material, evidence or document for its decision against a party, then the same must be brought to his notice and he be given an opportunity to rebut it or comment thereon. It is regarded as a fundamental principle of natural justice that no material ought to be relied on against a party without giving him an opportunity to respond to the same. The right of being heard may be of little value if the individual is kept in the dark as to the evidence against him and is not given an opportunity to deal with it. The right to know the material on which the authority is going to base its decision is an element of the right to defend oneself. If without disclosing any evidence to the party, the authority takes it into its consideration, and decides the matter against the party, then the decision is vitiated for it amounts to denial of a real and effective opportunity to the party to meet the case against him. The principle can be seen operating in several judicial pronouncements where non-disclosure of materials to the affected party has been held fatal to the validity of the hearing proceedings.

¶48

(emphasis supplied)

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

5/10

¶51

W.P. No. 16749 of 2024

¶52

21. In T. Takano -vs- Securities and Exchange

¶53

Board of India [(2022) 8 SCC 162], a two judge bench of this court, of which one of us was a part (Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, J.), discussed the line of cases of this Court on the duty to disclose investigative material. The Court analyzed the ratio

¶54

in Natwar Singh -vs- Director of Enforcement [(2010) 13 SCC 255], Krishna Chandra Tandon -vs- Union of India [(1974) 4 SCC 374], Khudiram Das -vs- State of West Bengal [(1975) 2 SCC 81] , Union of India -vs- Mohd . Ramzan Khan [(1991) 1 SCC 588], Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad

¶55

-vs- B. Karunaka [(1993) 4 SCC 727], State Bank of Patiala -vs- SK Sharma [(1996) 3 SCC 364], State of Uttar Pradesh -vs- Ramesh Chandra Mangalik [(2002) 3 SCC 443], Kothari Filaments -vs- Commissioner Of Customs [(2009) 2 SCC 192], and noted that:

¶56

“39. The following principles emerge from the above discussion:

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

6/10

¶59

W.P. No. 16749 of 2024

¶60

(i) A quasi-judicial authority has a duty to disclose the material that has been relied upon at the stage of adjudication; and

¶61

(ii) An ipse dixit of the authority that it has not relied on certain material would not exempt it of its liability to disclose such material if it is relevant to and has a nexus to the action that is taken by the authority. In all reasonable probability, such material would have influenced the decision reached by the authority.

¶62

Thus, the actual test is whether the material that is required to be disclosed is relevant for purpose of adjudication. If it is, then the principles of natural justice require its due disclosure .” (emphasis supplied)

¶63

23. On the issue of the impact of such nondisclosure, in T.Takano -vs- Securities and Exchange Board of India [(2022) 8 SCC 162] summarizing the ratio of the Constitution Bench in

¶64

Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad -vs- B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727], we noted that:

¶65

“A Constitution Bench of this Court in Karunakar (supra) held that the non-disclosure of the relevant information is not in itself sufficient to warrant the

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶67

7/10

¶68

W.P. No. 16749 of 2024

¶69

setting aside of the order of punishment. It was held that in order to set aside the order of punishment, the aggrieved person must be able prove that prejudice has been caused to him due to non-disclosure. To prove prejudice, he must prove that had the material been disclosed to him the outcome or the punishment would have been different. The test for the extent of disclosure and the corresponding remedy for non-disclosure is dependent on the objective that the disclosure seeks to achieve. Therefore, the impact of non-disclosure on the reliability of the verdict must also be determined vis-à-vis, the overall fairness of the proceeding. While determining the reliability of the verdict and punishment, the court must also look into the possible uses of the undisclosed information for purposes ancillary to the outcome, but that which might have impacted the verdict.”

¶70

(emphasis supplied)

¶71

It is accepted that there is nothing available to show that any show

¶72

cause notice had been issued to the Petitioner calling for an explanation from her with supporting materials relied against her before the impugned orders were passed. Such incurable flaw in decision making by the Respondents is in

¶73

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶74

8/10

¶75

W.P. No. 16749 of 2024

¶76

violation of the principles of natural justice and would vitiate the impugned orders. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders passed by the First and Second Respondents are set aside leaving it open to the concerned authorities to appropriately deal with the matter following due process. It is needless to add here that no view has been expressed by this Court on the merits of the controversy involved.

¶77

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed on the aforesaid terms.

¶78

Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

¶79

08.07.2024

¶80

Index: Yes/No NCC: Yes/No

¶81

smn

¶82

¶83

The District Collector and Chairman, District Rural Development Agency, Villupuram District.

¶84

The Block Development Officer, Vaanur, Panchayat Union, Villupuram District.

¶85

The Village President, Kolluvari Village Panchayat, Vaanur Panchayat Union, Villupuram District.

¶86

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶87

9/10

¶88

W.P. No. 16749 of 2024

¶89

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN , J.

¶90

smn

¶91

W.P. No. 16749 of 2024 and W.M.P. Nos. 18403,18404 and 18405 of 2024

¶92

08.07.2024

¶93

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶94

10/10

Amutha v. the District Collector / Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amutha v. the District Collector / Chairman

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

M.Karuppasamy, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

S.P.Sithuraj Vs the Regional Transport Officer

S.Jeevananda Iyappan Vs the Regional Transport Officer

V.Revathi Vs the Government of Tmail Nadu

A.B.Venkatesan Vs the Joint Commissioner

T.Thamayanthi, Vs Tamilnadu Wakf Board