Allahabad High Court
C/M Ramapur Uchhtar Madhyamik ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 18 November, 2021
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25643 of 2021 Petitioner :- C/M Ramapur Uchhtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- P.K. Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned order dated 31.07.2021 passed by respondent no.3, which has been communicated to the petitioners' institution under the letter of the Finance and Accounts Officer of the Office of District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur dated 31st July, 2021, whereby he has directed the single operation of bank accounts of the petitioners' institution. He has also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the application dated 18.08.2021 made by the petitioner and not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of the petitioners' institution in accordance with law.
2. On 11th December, 2021, on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned 31st July, 2021 has been without jurisdiction as the Finance and Accounts Officer of the Office of District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur has no power to pass such order, this Bench passed following order:
"Heard Sri P.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 31.07.2021 has been passed by respondent no.4-Finance and Account Officer (Basic), Mirzapur, which is without jurisdiction. He further submits that on communication letter dated 31.07.2021 sent by the District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur, the order impugned has been passed by the Finance and Account Officer, Basic Education, Mirzapur on the same day, i.e. 31.07.2021.
With respect to the aforesaid facts, twice time was granted to the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions in the matter. However, inspite of letters being sent by the Office of the Chief Standing Counsel, no one has turned up.
In such circumstances, this Court has no other option but to direct the respondent no.3-District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mirzapur to remain present before this Court on the next date fixed, i.e. 18.11.2021.
Put up this case on 18.11.2021 as fresh, on which date the respondent no.3 shall remain present before this Court alongwith all the relevant records. "
3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, today, Mr. Gautam Prasad, District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur (respondent no.3 herein) is present in the Court today along with exemption application. The exemption application is taken on record.
4. On the pointed query being made by the Court as to under which authority of law, the Finance and Accounts Officer of the Office of District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur has passed the order dated 31st July, 2021 directing single operation of accounts of the petitioners' institution, Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel submits that the document dated 31st July, 2021, which has been signed by the Finance and Accounts Officer of the Office of District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur is only a communication letter, which has been issued to the petitioners' institution under the order of the District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur dated 31st July, 2021, wherein he has directed single operation of accounts of the petitioners' institution, a copy of which has been brought on record at page-22 of the exemption application filed today.
5. In view of the averments made in the affidavit accompanied the exemption application, the future presence of Mr. Gautam Prasad is exempted unless directed otherwise.
6. Mr. P.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shailendra Singh, the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents agree that the present writ petition may be decided at this stage, without calling for any further affidavits specifically in view of the order proposed to be passed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur dated 31st July, 2021 directing single operation of bank accounts of the petitioners' institution is in violation of principal of natural justice, as there is no whisper as on which date the petitioner has been afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In support of the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Raja Tej Singh Vidyalaya Aurandh, Mainpuri-Appellant Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri-Respondents reported in 2000 0 Supreme (All) 32, wherein it has been held as follows:
"29.......no order for single operation of accounts can be passed without reasonable opportunity to the Committee of Management......"
8. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order impugned directing single operation of the bank accounts of the petitioners' institution contains no reason. He, therefore, submits that the order impugned is illegal, hence the same is liable to be quashed.
9. Learned Standing Counsel has not satisfactorily controverted or rebutted the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and gone through the order impugned, this Court finds substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
11. From bare reading of the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur dated 31st July, 2021 and the communication letter issued by the Finance and Accounts Officer of the Office of District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur dated 31st July, 2021, it has apparently clear that the petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing before the passing of the impugned order, as there is no whisper in both order and letter as to on which date the petitioner has been called upon to set up his case with regard to any complaint made against him. Perusal of the both the order and letter also indicate that the same does not contain any reason.
12. So far as the second submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, this Court may record that it is settled proposition of law that even in administrative matters, the reasons should be recorded as it is incumbent upon the authorities to pass a speaking and reasoned order. In Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in AIR 1991 SC 537, the Apex Court has observed as under:-
"Every such action may be informed by reason and if follows that an act un-informed by reason is arbitrary, the rule of law contemplates governance by law and not by humour, whim or caprice of the men to whom the governance is entrusted for the time being. It is the trite law that "be you ever so high, the laws are above you." This is what a man in power must remember always."
13. In Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Consumer Education and Research Centre, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 480, the Apex Court observed that the State or its instrumentality must not take any irrelevant or irrational factor into consideration or appear arbitrary in its decision. "Duty to act fairly" is part of fair procedure envisaged under Articles 14 and 21. Every activity of the public authority or those under public duty must be received and guided by the public interest. Same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Mahesh Chandra Vs. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation & Ors., reported in AIR 1993 SC 935; and Union of India Versus M.L. Capoor, reported in AIR 1974 SC 87.
14. In State of West Bengal Vs. Atul Krishna Shaw & Anr., 1991 reported in (Suppl.) 1 SCC 414, the Apex Court observed that "giving of reasons is an essential element of administration of justice. A right to reason is, therefore, an indispensable part of sound system of judicial review."
15. In S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984, it has been held that the object underlying the rules of natural justice is to prevent mis-carriage of justice and secure fair play in action. The expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice provides for requirement to record reasons as it is now regarded as one of the principles of natural justice, and it was held in the above case that except in cases where the requirement to record reasons is expressly or by necessary implication dispensed with, the authority must record reasons for its decision.
16. In Krishna Swami Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 1993 SC 1407, the Apex Court observed that the rule of law requires that any action or decision of a statutory or public authority must be founded on the reason stated in the order or borne-out from the record. The Court further observed that "reasons are the links between the material, the foundation for these erection and the actual conclusions. They would also administer how the mind of the maker was activated and actuated and there rational nexus and syntheses with the facts considered and the conclusion reached. Lest it may not be arbitrary, unfair and unjust, violate Article 14 or unfair procedure offending Article 21."
17. Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. L.K. Ratna & Ors., (1986) 4 SCC 537; Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 109. In Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., AIR 1999 Raj. 47. In Vasant D. Bhavsar Vs. Bar Council of India & Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 45, the Apex Court held that an authority must pass a speaking and reasoned order indicating the material on which its conclusions are based. Similar view has been reiterated in M/s. Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors, 2003 AIR SCW 440; Secretary, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Government of India Vs. CIPLA Ltd. & Ors., (2003) 7 SCC 1; and Union of India & Anr. Vs. International Trading Co. & Anr., (2003) 5 SCC 437.
17. The Apex Court in the case of in Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar and Ors. Reported in (2003) 11 SCC 519 and in the case of State of Uttranchal Vs. Sunil Kumar Negi reported in 2008 (4) ALJ. 226, has held that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless.
18. So far as the first submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, this Court may record that any order which has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved person, is clearly in violation of principle of natural justice, which is the requirement of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
19. in such circumstances, the order dated 31st July, 2021 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur directing single operation of bank accounts of the petitioners' institution is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur for decision afresh. While considering the matter afresh, the District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur shall call for the reply and other document from the petitioner regarding any complaint made against him, within two weeks from date of production of certified copy of this order. On such letter being received, the petitioner shall file his reply supported by such documents, as he may be advised within two weeks thereafter. In case such reply is filed within the aforesaid time, the District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur shall consider and decide the same, strictly in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order preferably within two weeks thereafter.
22. The present writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made above.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 18.11.2021 Sushil/-