Durgadevi Fishermen Co-Operative ... vs State Of Karnataka, on 14 September, 2011

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Durgadevi Fishermen Co-Operative ... vs State Of Karnataka, on 14 September, 2011

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

HE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

IN T
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 14° DAY SEPTEMBER, 20.1 be

BEFORE .
THE HON''BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHA REDDY.

WRIT PETITION N0.66246/2011(GM-TEN) :

BETWEEN:

SHRI DURGADEVI FISHERMEN
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY | LIMITED :
BHEETYANTANDA, WEST KAVALI POST, >
TQ. HADAGALI, DIST. BELLARY 5 >
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

AND SECRETARY.

(i)

mo R/O BE

SOMLA NAIE:
S/O SAVEN AIK. AGE 48 y BARS,
OCC: CHAIRMAN,

R/O BHEETYANTAN
WEST KAVALI F

TO. HADAGALT, Dré

". BELLARY,

MORAN, .
S/O AMBANI-BHE SEMA. N, Al K
AGE:38 YEARS, OCC: SECRETARY

,ANTANDA,
: Ww TEST Ka we L

s Re. HADAG ALI BIST. BELLARY, .. PETITIONERS

"(BY SRI.VM.SH bed AVANT, ADV..)

ye

STATE CF KARNATAKA,

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL H

BANDRY
AND FISHERIES, VIKAS SOUDHA,

-aANGAL IRE,

to

T. BELLARY,

----

Md .

& SoD ctBtosinersnnatinnnn REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. :

. RESPONDENTS » (BY SMT. K.VIDYAVATHI, AGA FOR R1 . SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADV. FOR C/R-2) THIS PETITON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 O - "TE 7 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH.THE -ORDE R . BEARING NO.1439/B1/70 DATED 17/08/2011 PASSED. BY. THE 25), RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE J ANDLETC.. THIS PETITION COMING. ON "FOR pREL MINARY | HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOW ING This petition though "sted. Por _ preliminary hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, is finally heard and disposed of by this order.

2. Petitioner a co-operative society, recipient of @ tender jn, the previous year, aggrieved by the order < dated 17 /08/2 2011 Annexure "J" of the second ~Fespondentinforming the petitioner of being barred Besa tem that date from participating in the Fisheries Tenders, in the Board, has presented this se chtie

3. The communication impugned suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record since no reasons are assigned for black listing, hence tentamounts to denial of justice."

3. Although, Sri Mahesh Wodewar, "learned counsel for the second respondent: Board contends that the petitioner is a defauléer: till date and has committed many 'irregularties 'and violated certain conditions of, tender disentitled to svmpathy or benevolence, | aim net impressed by the submission.

4. icon is else where stated that recording of reasons isa part of fair procedure. Reasons are harbinger petween the mind of maker of the decision ~ in. the 'controversy and the decision or conclusion arrived. at. They substitute subjectivity with objectivity, as observed in Alexander ".. Machinery(dudley) Ld., Vs. Crabtree reported in 1974 + A fan ACR 120, which was followed by the Apex Court in Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mvsore and Another reported in &2005)2 Supreme Court Cases 329.

Thus failure to assign reasons amounts to. deniat. of justice.

In the result, ; . 7 petition . "is allowed. Communication gated 17/68/2014 Annexure "J? is quashed. It ig "neediess 'te state that the second respondent may. pass. en order afresh strictly in accordance. with. taw "and in the light of the observations made supra.

emi 'eesenossemnn

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court