Madras High Court
The District Collector vs Manickam on 21 March, 2005
Bench: Markandey Katju, F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 21/03/2005
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. MARKANDEY KATJU, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
Writ Appeal No.548 of 2005
1. The District Collector,
North Arcot Ambedkar District,
Vellore-9.
2. The Special Tahsildar,
Adi Dravida Welfare,
Gudiyatham. .. Appellants
-Vs-
Manickam .. Respondent
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order made in Writ Petition No.14448 of 1996 dated 26.2.2004.
!For Appellant : Mr. S. Gomathinayagam
Special Govt. Pleader
^For Respondent: --
:J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Honourable The Chief Justice) This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 26.2.2004.
2. We heard the learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants and find no merit in this appeal.
3. The learned single Judge in her order has quashed the order dated 4.3.1996 on the ground that it was passed mechanically without proper application of mind by merely filling up a cyclostyled form which stated that the objections of the land owner to the acquisition are overruled.
4. We agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge.
5. Under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act 1978 (Act XXXI of 1978) (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'), the District Collector can authorise any officer to give a hearing to the land owner and under Section 4(3)(b) of the Act, such officer, after hearing the party concerned, has to make a report to the District Collector containing his recommendations on the cause shown by the land owner and on such report, the District Collector may pass such orders as he may deem fit. Section 4(3)(b) of the Act states as follows:
" Where any officer authorised by the District Collector has called upon the owner or other person to show cause under sub-section(2), the officer so authorised shall make a report to the District Collector containing his recommendations on the cause so shown for the decision of the District Collector. After considering such report the District Collector may pass such orders as he may deem fit."
Even assuming that the order of the District Collector under Section 4(3)(b) of the Act is an administrative order and not a quasi judicial order, it is now well settled that even administrative orders are subject to judicial review on the Wednesbury principle, vide Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. Vs. Wednesbury Corporation, (1947) 2 All E.R. 680.
5. Before the decision of the House of Lords in the Wednesbury case in 1947 (supra), the broad distinction was that administrative orders were not subject to judicial review but quasi judicial orders were subject to such review. However, by the decision of the House of Lords in the Wednesbury case (supra) in 1947, this legal position changed and thereafter the view taken by the Courts in England as well as in India is that even administrative orders are subject to judicial review though on narrower grounds than judicial or quasi judicial orders, vide A.K.Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150.
6. In the Wednesbury Case (supra) the House of Lords observed:
A person entrusted with a discretion must direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to the matter that he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules, he may truly, be said, and often is said, to be acting unreasonably.
7. Thus, it is not correct to say that administrative orders are not subject to judicial review at all. According to the Wednesbury principle, if an administrative order is passed without proper application of mind by the administrative authority to the relevant factors to which the said authority should have applied his mind, then the said order is liable to be quashed, vide Rohtas Industries Ltd. Vs. S.D. Agarwal, AIR 1969 S.C. 707 (vide para-33).
8. In the present case, it appears that the order of the District Collector was passed in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind by merely filling up a cyclostyled form. We cannot approve of such kind of orders. It may be that the Special Tahsildar, who was authorised by the District Collector, considered the objections of the land owners, but in our opinion the District Collector must also consider those objections and apply his own mind to those objections, as has been held in the Wednesbury case (see quotation above). Though we agree with the learned Special Government Pleader that if opportunity of hearing has been given by the person authorised by the District Collector under Section 4(2) of the Act (in this case the Special Tahsildar) it is not necessary for the District Collector to give a second opportunity of hearing, yet in our opinion the District Collector must certainly apply his own mind to the objections made by the land owner to the acquisition as they affect his very valuable rights. The Collector need not write an elaborate order like a judgment of a Court of Law while rejecting the objections of the land owner, but he must at least in brief mention the reasons why he is rejecting the objections so that the land owner may have the satisfaction that his objections have been considered, and this Court also may be satisfied that the District Collector had applied his mind to such objections.
9. In S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984 a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court observed (vide paragraph 35) that recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it reduces chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision making.
10. In the present case, all that the Collector has said is that the objections of the land owner to the acquisition are overruled. In such a situation, it is very difficult for us to decide whether the Collector had really applied his mind to the objections of the land owner or not. Unless a brief mention of the objections and the reasons why they are being rejected are mentioned in the order of the Collector, we have no option but to hold that the Collector has not applied his mind to such objections, and has acted arbitrarily. As held by the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
11. In this democratic country, there must be transparency in such matters so that the public is satisfied that its objections have been properly considered, even if they are ultimately rejected. All authorities must behave in a democratic manner so as to retain the confidence of the public.
12. For the reasons given above, we find no merit in this appeal and accordingly it is dismissed. Consequenlty, connected W.A.M.P.No.1024 of 2005 for interim stay is also dismissed.
Index:Yes Internet:Yes Vu/sm Copy to:-
1. The District Collector, North Arcot Ambedkar District, Vellore-9.
2. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravida Welfare, Gudiyatham.