Punjab-Haryana High Court
K.N.T. Nair vs Chandigarh Administration And Ors. on 18 July, 2002
Author: J.S. Khehar
Bench: J.S. Khehar
JUDGMENT J.S. Khehar, J.
1. The petitioner was allotted an industrial subsidised House No. 13-A in Sector 30-B Chandigarh, on 30.6.1980. On account of alleged violations committed by the petitioner, a show cause notice dated 28.6.1995 was issued to him. In the said show cause notice the following two violations were mentioned:-
"(a) Boundary wall is constructed in Govt. Land.
(b) Two rooms extra are constructed, on Govt. Land."
The Estate Officer cancelled the allotment to the petitioner on account of the aforesaid violations by his order dated 8.11.1995. Dissatisfied by the order passed by the Estate Officer, the petitioner preferred an appeal. During the course of the appeal, it was conceded by the Appellate Authority that the violations mentioned in the show cause notice dated 28.6.1995 had not been committed by the petitioner. On inspection of the site, the following violations were found to have been committed by the petitioner:-
"1. One Pucca bed room has been made in rear open courtyard.
2. Rear varandha converted into room.
3. Stair has been made in rear courtyard which is leading to terrace.
4. Gate has been opened in rear boundary wall towards V-3 road.
5. One temporary shed has been made at terrace."
On the basis of the violations found during the course of inspection while the petitioner's appeal was pending, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal in view of the fact that the petitioner had not removed the violations discovered during the course of appeal despite the fact that he had undertaken to do so.
2. The petitioner challenged the Appellate order passed by the Chief Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh, dated 20.9.2000 by filing a revision petition. The revision petition was also dismissed by the Adviser to the Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh, on 22.11.2000 on account of the fact that five violations indicated in the appellate order were still subsisting.
3. The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the cancellation/resumption could have been ordered only on the grounds depicted in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner. In this behalf, it Is pointed out that the five violations, referred to in the appellate order dated 20.9.2000 and the revisional order dated 22.11.2000 did not find mention in the show cause notice and, therefore, could not be made basis for cancellation/resumption of the premises under reference.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent acknowledges the fact that the reasons indicated in the orders passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority were not the basis indicated in the show cause notice, yet it is vehemently contended that the petitioner, having conceded before the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority, that he would remove the violations, referred to the said orders, it is not now open to the petitioner to raise the plea advanced on his behalf.
5. I have considered the contention of the rival parties. The very purpose of issuing show cause notice is to ensure that the defaulting party has notice of the basis on which action is contemplated against him. This is one of the essential procedural requirements of the rules of natural justice. It is thus evident that one of the cardinal principles of rules of natural justice has not been followed.
6. In "Nasir Ahmed v. Asst. Custodian-General, Evacuee Property", A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1157 the Apex Court held that a notice which merely repeated the statutory language without giving any facts and other particulars, is insufficient and inadequate for an effective response. It is, therefore imperative that the notice issued to an affected party discloses the grounds on which the action is proposed to be taken, in clear, specific and unambiguous terms. One cannot also lose sight of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in "Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors., " A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 851 .wherein it observed as under:
"The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validity of additional grounds later brought out."
No adverse order can be passed against an individual without informing him the basis thereof. Undoubtedly five violations depicted in the appellate order was never made part of the show cause notice dated 28.6.1995, issued to the petitioner. The same, therefore, cannot be taken into consideration for passing any final order to the detriment of the petitioner.
7. The order passed by the Estate Officer dated 8.11.1995 is clearly unsustainable in view of the fact that even according to the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority, the violations depicted in the show cause notice have actually not been committed by the petitioner. The said order is unsustainable in law and as such is set aside. The appellate order dated 20.9.2000, passed by the Chief Administrator and the revisional order dated 22.11.2000, passed by the Adviser to the Administrator are liable to be set aside, on the basis of the conclusions recorded above, namely, that the said orders are not based on the reasons recorded in the show cause notice. The appellate order and the revisional order are thus set aside.
8. It is further that the setting aside of the orders referred to above would not preclude the respondents from initiating fresh action against the petitioner by informing him the reasons which were earlier not made a basis for cancellation of the industrial subsidised house allotted to him.