In a judicial review exercise, the court is concerned not by the decision per se so long as it is not perverse or illegal, but decision making process. The decision making process must be fair and reasonable. It is elementary that every decision must be based upon the reasons. Thus, reasons become the foundations for the conclusions. At best they will indicate clearly the lines on which the mind of the competent authority has been applied and in the worst they will indicate the exclusion from the zone of consideration of irrelevant factors. Therefore, the impugned order is ex facie illegal for not supplying the live links to the conclusion, which in turn indicates non-application of mind to the objections stated. When I say that there must be reasons assigned, I am not expecting the administrative authority to deal with the objections in the same manner as a very well trained court would have done. But, at least, the objections must be seriously taken into account and consideration and an appropriate answer should be furnished thereto. Then alone, the usual attack of non-application of mind on the part of the competent authority can be neutralized. For sheer lack of reasons assigned in the impugned order dated 16.10.2012, it is set aside after hearing Sri Radha Krishna Reddy, leaned Standing Counsel for GHMC who in spite of a valiant effort put in by him could not satisfy me that the impugned order contained any reasons. {Para 3}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Writ Petition No. 35976 of 2012
Decided On: 22.11.2012
K. Ashok Kumar Vs. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Hon'ble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao
Citation: MANU/AP/0908/2012
1. Against a series of orders passed on 16.10.2012 by the Assistant City Planner for Circle No. VII of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, the petitioners instituted this writ petition crying foul of the contents of the said notice. All these orders are passed by the Assistant City Planner concerned in accordance with Section 636 of the HMC Act, 1955 directing the petitioners to voluntarily remove the unauthorized constructions made by them respectively within three days failing which intimating the petitioners that such structures will be removed by the GHMC at the expense of the petitioners. The petitioners have asserted that these orders have been served on 19.11.2012 by speed post by the respondents. Section 636 of the Act gives power to the Commissioner to require any construction made without obtaining necessary permission to be removed and in case the person to whom such a direction was issued by the Commissioner ignores or fails to remove any structure within the time specified, the said task will be carried out by the corporation at the expense of the said individual. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been issued a notice in terms of Section 452 of the Act on 31.7.2012 for which a detailed reply has been filed by the petitioners on 16.8.2012. They raised several objections. Whether those objections are tenable or otherwise would be decided by the person who is concluding the exercise in accordance with Section 636 of the Act. Whereas the relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:
the reply submitted by you vide reference 3rd cited in response to the show-cause notice has been examined and the same is not found satisfactory.
2. To say the least this is most unsatisfactory way of deciding an issue. Every order must contain the reasons for the conclusion arrived thereat. It is the reasons which provide the links to the conclusions. The relevance of those reasons must lend support to the conclusion. The expressions "found not satisfactory" are reflective of the conclusion but, not the reason. As to why the explanation offered by the petitioners is not satisfactory, forms part of their process of reasoning.
3. In a judicial review exercise, the court is concerned not by the decision per se so long as it is not perverse or illegal, but decision making process. The decision making process must be fair and reasonable. It is elementary that every decision must be based upon the reasons. Thus, reasons become the foundations for the conclusions. At best they will indicate clearly the lines on which the mind of the competent authority has been applied and in the worst they will indicate the exclusion from the zone of consideration of irrelevant factors. Therefore, the impugned order is ex facie illegal for not supplying the live links to the conclusion, which in turn indicates non-application of mind to the objections stated. When I say that there must be reasons assigned, I am not expecting the administrative authority to deal with the objections in the same manner as a very well trained court would have done. But, at least, the objections must be seriously taken into account and consideration and an appropriate answer should be furnished thereto. Then alone, the usual attack of non-application of mind on the part of the competent authority can be neutralized. For sheer lack of reasons assigned in the impugned order dated 16.10.2012, it is set aside after hearing Sri Radha Krishna Reddy, leaned Standing Counsel for GHMC who in spite of a valiant effort put in by him could not satisfy me that the impugned order contained any reasons. An increasing trend is noticed by the courts that, whenever orders are passed, directing the respondents to act in accordance with law, in particular, the respondent authorities are just mechanically passing orders without serious application of their minds. This is a dangerous trend. It must be arrested and reversed most promptly. In the instant case, a Division Bench of this court in WP No. 16545 of 2008, has directed the respondents to finalise the action. The hope of this court that the respondents would conclude the entire exercise in accordance with law has thus been belied, as is now demonstrated by the impugned order. The impugned order is, in a way, a perverted implementation of the order passed by the Division Bench in WP No. 16545 of 2008. If I may say so, this is a help which the respondents have extended to the cause of the petitioners by passing such mechanical and thoughtless orders, and in doing so the respondents are far from complying with an earlier judgment of this court, are only acting in breach thereof. Since Sri Radhakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel suggested that I may not take a serious view of the conduct of the officer concerned, I am not taking a serious view of this attitude of the officer. I am sure the officer concerned will not provide any such further opportunity for this court henceforth.
4. Liberty is granted to the respondents to finalise the action that is required to be taken in accordance with the Section 636 of the Act within 15 days from today. The decision taken by the respondents shall be communicated to the petitioners by Regd Post with Ack Due, but not by ordinary postage or postage under certificate of posting. With this the writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment