Telangana High Court
Sulabh International Social Service ... vs Singareni Colleries Company Limited on 9 December, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P.No.34573 OF 2024
ORDER:
Heard Sri M. S. Prasad, learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:
"...to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned letter/proceedings of 2nd respondent terminating the maintenance contract of all 213 toilet complexes vide impugned letter/proceedings Ref.No.CRP/CVL/OTS/24-25/4264 dated 03.12.2024 as illegal, null, void, against principles of natural justice, arbitrary and unconstitutional and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1980. The petitioner organisation has agreed to the proposal of respondent No.1/Singareni Collieries Company Limited to improve the sanitary conditions and for that purpose agreed to construct 2 public toilet complexes at various places within its area of operation. The petitioner entered into agreement dated 09.08.2011 with respondent No.1. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has issued impugned proceedings No.CRP/CVL/OTS/24-25/4264, dated 03.12.2024 by terminating the maintenance contract of all 213 toilet complexes. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
PERUSED THE RECORD
4. The proceedings impugned No.CRP/CVL/OTS/24- 25/4264 dated 03.12.2024 of the General Manager (Civil), the Singareni Collieries Company Limited, A Government Company, Civil Engineering Department, Kothagudem, is extracted hereunder:
Please refer to the letters cited. Vide letters cited 2 to 5, you were requested to extend Provident fund & ESI facility to the Safai Karamacharis & Supervisors engaged in the maintenance of toilet complexes in The S.C.Co. Ltd., But till date, you have not taken any steps for implementation of Provident fund & ESI facility to the Safai Karamcharis & Supervisors engaged in the maintenance of toilet complexes in The S.C.Co.Ltd., 3 It is reported by user departments and observed during inspections to various Areas, you are not maintaining the toilet complexes as per the standards and terms & conditions of the contract in spite of the notices issued.
In view of the above, Maintenance contracts of 187 nos. toilet complexes are hereby terminated.
You are hereby advised to stop the maintenance services to all 213 nos. toilet complexes with effect from 10.12.2024 onwards including the 26 nos. toilet complexes for which contract period already expired.
Please acknowledge the receipt of this letter."
5. A bare perusal of the impugned proceedings No.CRP/CVL/OTS/24-25/4264 dated 03.12.2024 passed by respondent No.2 clearly indicates that no prior notice has been issued to the petitioner while passing the impugned proceedings and it is specifically stated in paragraph No.2 of the said proceedings dated 03.12.2024 that, the petitioner has failed in taking steps for implementation of Provident Fund and ESI Facility to the Safai Karamcharis & Supervisors engaged in the maintenance of toilet complexes in Singareni Collieries Company Limited and hence the impugned proceedings were passed. It is also indicated in the impugned proceedings No.CRP/CVL/OTS/ 24-25/4264 dated 03.12.2024 of the 2nd respondent that the 4 petitioner has to maintain the toilet complexes as per the standards and terms and conditions of the contract, however, the petitioner failed to comply with the said terms and conditions of the contract.
6. Sri M. S. Prasad, learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in so far as the ground for not initiating the steps for implementation of Provident Fund and ESI facility to the Safai Karamacharis & Supervisors engaged in the maintenance of toilet complexes to the respondent company is concerned, the matter is sub-judice before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same cannot be a ground for issuing the impugned proceedings No.CRP/CVL/OTS/24- 25/4264 dated 03.12.2024. The learned counsel further contends that though the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 28.02.2023 to respondent No.2 pertains to extension of maintenance for further period of 20 years of 21 Sulabh Toilet Complexes at various areas under the limits of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, had been acknowledged by the office of the respondents herein, the respondents had not considered the said representation till date. 5
This Court opines that the impugned proceedings dated 03.12.2024 of the 2nd respondent is in clear violation of principles of natural justice.
7. The Judgment of the Apex Court in "MANGILAL V. STATE OF M.P., reported in (2004) 2 SCC page 447, a two-Judge Bench of Apex Court held that the principles of natural justice need to be observed even if the statute is silent in that regard. In other words, a statutory silence should be taken to imply the need to observe the principles of natural justice where substantial rights of parties are affected: (SCC pp.453-54, para 10) observed as under:
"10. Even if a statute is silent and there are no positive words in the Act or the Rules made thereunder there could be nothing wrong in spelling out the need to hear the parties whose rights and interest are likely to be affected, by the orders that may be passed, and making it a requirement to follow a fair procedure before taking a decision, unless the statute provides otherwise. The principles of natural justice must be read into unoccupied interstices of the statute, unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary. No form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant's defence or stand. Even in the absence of a provision in procedural laws, 6 power inheres in every tribunal/court of a judicial or quasi- judicial character, to adopt modalities necessary to achieve requirements of natural justice and fair play to ensure better and proper discharge of their duties. Procedure is mainly grounded on the principles of natural justice irrespective of the extent of its application by express provision in that regard in a given situation. It has always been a cherished principle. Where the statute is silent about the observance of the principles of natural justice, such statutory silence is taken to imply compliance with the principles of natural justice where substantial rights of parties are considerably affected. The application of natural justice becomes presumptive, unless found excluded by express words of statute or necessary intendment. Its aim is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. Principles of natural justice do not supplant the law, but supplement it. These rules operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. They are a means to an end and not an end in themselves."
8. In a decision of a three-Judge Bench of Apex Court reported in (1981) 1 Supreme Court Cases 664 in "SWADESHI COTTON MILLS v. UNION OF INDIA", the issue was whether the Central Government was required to comply with the requirements of audi alteram partem before it took over the management of an industrial 7 undertaking under Section 18-AA(1)(a) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. R.S. Sarkaria, J.speaking for the majority consisting of himself and D.A. Desai, J. laid down the following principles of law at page 689, para 44 and observed as under :
"44. In short, the general principle - as distinguished from an absolute rule of uniform application seems to be that where a statute does not, in terms, exclude this rule of prior hearing but contemplates a post- decisional hearing amounting to a full review of the original order on merits, then such a statute would be construed as excluding the audi alteram partem rule at the pre-decisional stage. Conversely, if the statute conferring the power is silent with regard to the giving of a pre-decisional hearing to the person affected and the administrative decision taken by the authority involves civil consequences of a grave nature, and no full review or appeal on merits against that decision is provided, courts will be extremely reluctant to construe such a statute as excluding the duty of affording even a minimal hearing shown of all its formal trappings and dilatory features at the pre-decisional stage, unless, viewed pragmatically, it would paralyse the administrative process or frustrate the need for utmost promptitude. In short, this rule of fair play 'must not be jettisoned save in very exceptional circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands'. The court must make every effort to salvage this cardinal rule to the maximum extent possible, with situational modifications.8
But, to recall the words of Bhagwati, J., the core of it must, however, remain, namely, that the person affected must have reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise."
9. Taking into consideration:
(a) The submissions put forth by the learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents,
(b) The fact as borne on record that the respondent No.2 had not issued any notice to the petitioner prior to the termination of the contract and directed the petitioner herein to stop the maintenance services to all 213 toilet complexes with effect from
10.12.2024 onwards unilaterally,
(c) The observations in the Judgments of the Apex Court (referred to and extracted above) i.e.,
(i) "MANGILAL V. STATE OF M.P., reported in (2004) 2 SCC page 447, a two-Judge Bench of Apex Court
(ii) Three-Judge Bench of Apex Court reported in (1981) 1 Supreme Court Cases 664 in "SWADESHI COTTON MILLS v. UNION OF INDIA", 9 The impugned proceedings No.CRP/CVL/OTS/ 24-25/4264 dated 03.12.2024 passed by respondent No.2 is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.02.2023 within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner.
10. With these above observations, the writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
______________________________ MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA Date: 09.12.2024 Dsu