Himachal Pradesh High Court
M/S Thakur Mushroom Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India And Others on 18 December, 2017
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9946 of 2012 .
Date of decision: 18.12.2017 M/s Thakur Mushroom Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner.
Versus Union of India and others ..Respondents.
Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Ms. Chandrika Negi, Advocate, vice Mr. Narender Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge ( Oral ) This is a second round of litigation inter se the parties and indeed compulsive one for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a Civil Writ Petition being CWP No. 374 of 2008 wherein he had sought same and similar relief as one claimed in the instant petition.
2. However, this Court after noticing the fact that the respondents had not, in fact, dealt with the case of the petitioner in its right perspective, directed them to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and dispose of the same by speaking order by 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?Yes ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2017 23:02:53 :::HCHP 2 specifically dealing with the NHB letter dated 19.1.2005 (Annexure P-2) whereby the petitioner was granted in-principal approval for the .
project with a total cost of Rs.110.55 lakh for which term loan of Rs. 57.00 lakhs had been sanctioned by respondent No.3 and at that time the respondents were also directed to consider the detailed assessment made by the financing institution i.e. respondent No.3 where they themselves had assessed the total eligible expenditure for subsidy to be Rs.76.92 as on 4.3.2005. This is clearly borne out from the operative portion of the order passed by this Court in CWP No. 374 of 2008 on 12.3.2012, which reads thus:
"....In these circumstances, I direct that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner afresh and shall dispose of the same by way of speaking order detailing specifically therein as to on what basis Annexures P-2and P-3 were prepared by them. Such exercise shall be under taken by the respondents within two months from the date of presentation of the copy of this order by the petitioner herein. The petitioner shall be given an opportunity of being heard. Petition disposed of accordingly. All miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of."
3. It is not in dispute that in compliance to the aforesaid directions, respondents No. 1 and 2 have passed the following order:
"National Horticulture Board Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, Plot NO.85, Sector 18, Institutional Area, ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2017 23:02:53 :::HCHP 3 Gurgaon - 122 015 (Haryana) Ph. 0124-2347441, Fax: 2342991,2341225, Email: [email protected] Website: www.nhb.gov.in .
Ref.No.NHB/HP/Thakur IPA-HP-1/2012-13/ Dated 24.08.2012 To Sh. Vinod Thakur M/s Thakur Mushroom Pvt. Ltd. Vill. & Post -Chambaghat, Distt. Solan - 173213 (HP), Email:[email protected] Sub:- Judgment in (CWP) Civil Writ Petition No. 374/2008 dated 12.03.2012 -opportunity for personal hearing at NHB on dated 26.06.2012-reg.
Sir, Please refer to the personal hearing with the competent authority of the Board on the subject cited above and to say that during the hearing you have not produced any evidence to substantiate your claim for increase in NHB subsidy.
In view of above, your case has been closed by competent authority by the Board.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/-
For Addl. Managing director.
Copy to: Center Incharge, NHB, Shimla(HP)."
4. Evidently, the aforesaid order does not assign any reasons and is, therefore, a non-speaking order. Thus, it can conveniently be held that the order passed by this Court on 12.3.2012 has been observed more in breach.
5. It would be noticed that the petitioner had submitted a detailed representation/written arguments in support of his claim, running into five pages, and none of the arguments raised therein have even been touched much less dealt with by the respondents in the impugned order. This clearly establishes and proves that the ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2017 23:02:53 :::HCHP 4 same has been passed in a cursory and mechanical manner and exhibits lack of application of mind.
.
6. Needless to mention here that the purpose of disclosure of reasons as held by a Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, reported in (1990) 4 SCC 594, is that the people must have confidence in the orders passed by the authorities, be it administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial. Unless reasons are disclosed, the people would not come to know whether the authority has applied its mind or not. It was further held that assigning of reasons minimise the chances of arbitrariness. Hence, it is an essential requirement of rule and law that some reasons, at least, in brief, must be disclosed in the order. It is otherwise cardinal principal that reason is the heart beat of an order and order without reasoning is not sustainable in law.
7. Having said so, the impugned order dated 24.8.2012 (Annexure P-11) cannot be withstand judicial scrutiny and is accordingly quashed and set-aside. Consequently, the respondent No.1 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order dealing specifically therein as to on what basis Annexures P-2 and P-3 with CWP No. 374 of 2008 were prepared by them. In addition thereto, the respondent No. 1 shall also consider the written arguments submitted by the petitioner vide representation dated 21.6.2012 and ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2017 23:02:53 :::HCHP 5 therefore need not afforded personal opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Such decision be taken as expeditiously as possible .
and in no event later than 08.01.2018.
8. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s) if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
December 18, 2017
(GR) r to ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ),
Judge
::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2017 23:02:53 :::HCHP