Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gandham Ravindra Vara Prasad, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No.8841 of 2021
Gandham Ravindra Vara Prasad, S/o Koteswara Rao, aged about
major, R/o Tulasi Nagar, Kanuru, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna
District.
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue (Excise) Department Secretariat Buildings at Velagapudi,
Amaravathi and three others.
... Respondents
Counsels for the petitioner : Sri K. Chidambaram
Counsel for respondents : GP for Prohibition and Excise
ORDER
Impugning the proceedings, dated 26.03.2021 passed in Cr.No.223/2021/SEB/C1, by respondent No.2, Commissioner, Special Enforcement Bureau, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, Krishna District, confirming the confiscation order, dated 27.01.2021 passed by respondent No.3, Superintendent of Police, Guntur District, in C.No.10239/SEB/GTR/2020, the above writ petition is filed.
2. Respondent No.3 passed orders confiscating Lorry bearing registration No.AP39 TC 7699, in connection with crime No.498 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Section 188 IPC Page 2 of 6 SRS, J W.P.No.8841 of 2021 and Section 34(i)(1), 50, 50B(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, on the ground of its involvement in illegal transportation of liquor bottles,
3. While admitting the writ petition on 26.04.2021, interim direction was granted in I.A.No.1 of 2021 for release of the subject vehicle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by respondent No.2 does not set out any reasons much less valid reasons. The authority failed to consider the grounds urged by the petitioner. He submits that in similar cases, the appellate authority has been releasing the vehicles subject to payment of fine. The authority ought to have followed the same.
5. As seen from the order, dated 26.03.2021, the reasons stated therein are not adequate.
6. In S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union of India1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring to the judgment in Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Limited case, held as follows:
"It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be 1 1990(4) SCC 594 Page 3 of 6 SRS, J W.P.No.8841 of 2021 supported by reasons. If courts of law are to be replaced by administrative authorities and tribunals, as indeed, in some kinds of cases, with the proliferation of Administrative Law they may have to be so replaced, it is essential that administrative authorities and tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them. Then along administrative authorities and tribunals, exercising quasi-judicial function will be able to justify their existence and carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence in the adjudicatory process. The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like the principle of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law".
The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held as follows at para 35:
"Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by its while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement Page 4 of 6 SRS, J W.P.No.8841 of 2021 that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge".
7. In fact, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, the authority did not consider the points urged by the petitioner. Being the appellate authority, it is the bounden duty of the authority to pass a reasoned order. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the order, dated 26.03.2021 passed by respondent No.2.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the order, dated 26.03.2021 passed in Cr.No.223/2021/SEB/C1 by respondent No.2. The matter is remitted to respondent No.2 to reconsider and pass fresh order with reasons. The authority shall also issue notice to the petitioner and afford opportunity of hearing at the time of enquiry.
Page 5 of 6
SRS, J W.P.No.8841 of 2021 The above exercise will be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 03.05.2024 ikn Page 6 of 6 SRS, J W.P.No.8841 of 2021 228 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Disposed of WRIT PETITION No.8841 of 2021 Date : 03.05.2024 IKN