Taj Connemara, A unit of Indian Hotels Company Ltd. v. Managing Director, Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDate:18.3.2011CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARWrit Petition No.6722 of 2011 andM.P.No.1 of 2011Taj Connemara, A unit of Indian Hotels Company Ltd.,represented by its General ManagerMr.Vijay Pratap Shrikent,Binny Road,Chennai-2. ... Petitioner vs.1.Managing Director, Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002.2.Controller of Finance (Revenue), Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.25, Sathyamurthy Road, Chennai-31. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the recordson the file of the second respondent in Lr.No.CMWSSB/Area-VII/B&C/1559/2010 dated 2.2.2011 and quash the same.For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subramanian,For Respondents :Mr.V.Manoharan.O R D E RWrit Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certioraricalling for the records of the second respondent inLr.No.CMWSSB/Area-VII/B&C/1559/2010 dated 2.2.2011 and quash thesame. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. Mr.V.Manoharan, learned counsel takes notice on behalf ofthe respondents. By consent of both parties, the writ petition istaken up for final disposal. 3. In a Writ Petition No.8111 of 2010 filed by the very samepetitioner against the first respondent and another, on 4.8.2010,this Court passed the following order:-"9. In the light of the regulation availableto consider the waiver request of the petitionerregarding surcharge as stated supra, thepetitioner is directed to make a representationbefore the first respondent seeking waiver ofsurcharge and if such request is made by thepetitioner, the first respondent is directed toconsider the same and pass necessary orders withina period of six weeks from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order. The said waiver ofsurcharge request can be considered by the firstrespondent only if the petitioner is paying theprinciple amount of Rs.9,32,574/- and enclose theproof for the same along with representation."4. It is stated that the petitioner has paid the admitted watercharges. Insofar as the waiver of surcharge is concerned, a detailedrepresentation has been made on 8.9.2010. Petitioner's plea is thatfrom 1.1.2000 till disconnection of water line on 19.2.2003, therewas no water supply and therefore, they are not liable to paysurcharge and sought for waiver. This Court specifically directedthe authority to consider the waiver on merits. However, on goingthrough the order under challenge, this Court finds that the orderhas been passed in a very cryptic and laconic manner whereby a sumof Rs.2,62,039/- alone has been waived and the balance amount hasbeen claimed. The detailed representation given by the petitioner,which is based on the order of this Court as mentioned above has notbeen considered at all. As to what is the basis of the originalsurcharge demand of Rs.13,94,195/- and the basis of determining thesum of Rs.2,62,039/- towards waiver is not reflected in the impugnedproceedings. The arithmetical calculation is totally devoid ofreasons, the waiver is arbitrary and consequently, this court is ofthe view that such order has to be set aside. 5. It is well established principle in law that AdministrativeAuthority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions isrequired to record reasons for its decision. In S.N.Mukherjee – v.Union of India reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1984, the Hon'bleSupreme Court held in paragraphs 35, 38 and 39 as follows:-"35. Reasons, when recorded by anadministrative authority in an order passed by it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ while exercising quasi-judicial functions, wouldno doubt facilitate the exercise of itsjurisdiction by the appellate or supervisoryauthority. But the other considerations, referredto above, which have also weighed with this Courtin holding that an administrative authority mustrecord reasons for its decision are of no lesssignificance. These considerations show that therecording of reasons by an administrativeauthority serves a salutary purpose, namely, itexcludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures adegree of fairness in the process of decisions-making. The said purpose would apply equally toall decisions and its application cannot beconfined to decisions which are subject toappeal, revision or judicial review. In ouropinion, therefore, the requirement that reasonsbe recorded should govern the decisions of anadministrative authority exercising quasi-judicialfunctions irrespective of the fact whether thedecision is subject to appeal, revision orjudicial review. It may, however, be added thatit is not required that the reasons should be aselaborate as in the decision of a Court of law.The extent and nature of the reasons would dependon particular facts and circumstances. What isnecessary is that the reasons are clear andexplicit so as to indicate that the authority hasgiven due consideration to the points incontroversy. The need for recording of reasons isgreater in a case where the order is passed at theoriginal stage. The appellate or revisionalauthority, if it affirms such an order, need notgive separate reasons if the appellate orrevisional authority agrees with the reasonscontained in the order under challenge.""38. The object underlying the rules ofnatural justice "is to prevent miscarriage ofjustice" and secure "fair play in action". Aspointed out earlier the requirement aboutrecording of reasons for its decision by anadministrative authority exercising quasi-judicialfunctions achieves this object by excludingchances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree offairness in the process of decision-making.Keeping in view the expanding horizon of theprinciples of natural justice, we are of theopinion, that the requirement to record reason canbe regarded as one of the principles of natural https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ justice which govern exercise of power byadministrative authorities. The rules of naturaljustice are not embodied rules. The extent oftheir application depends upon the particularstatutory framework whereunder jurisdiction hasbeen conferred on the administrative authority.With regard to the exercise of a particular powerby an administrative authority including exerciseof judicial or quasi-judicial functions thelegislature, while conferring the said power, mayfeel that it would not be in the larger publicinterest that the reasons for the order passed bythe administrative authority be recorded in theorder and be communicated to the aggrieved partyand it may dispense with such a requirement. Itmay do so by making an express provision to thateffect as those contained in the AdministrativeProcedure Act, 1946 of U.S.A. and theAdministrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act,1977 of Australia whereby the orders passed bycertain specified authorities are excluded fromthe ambit of the enactment. Such an exclusion canalso arise by necessary implication from thenature of the subject matter, the scheme and theprovisions of the enactment. The public interestunderlying such a provision would outweigh thesalutary purpose served by the requirement torecord the reasons. The said requirement cannot,therefore, be insisted upon in such a case.""39. For the reasons aforesaid, it must beconcluded that except in cases where therequirement has been dispensed with expressly orby necessary implication, an administrativeauthority exercising judicial or quasi-judicialfunctions is required to record the reasons forits decision."6. In the instant case, the authority who passed the impugnedproceedings dated 2.2.2011 has not stated any reasons and only forthis reason, the impugned order has to be set aside. 7. In view of the same, the impugned order is set aside. Aspleaded by Mr.V.Manohar, an learned counsel appearing for therespondents, the first respondent is directed to reconsider thematter and pass a reasoned order within six weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order based on the earlier representation.Till such time, the issue is decided by the first respondent, theimpugned claim of surcharge shall be kept in abeyance. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. The Writ Petition is allowed by way of remand as above. Nocosts. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/-Deputy Registrar//true copy//Sub Asst.RegistrartsTo1.The Managing Director, Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002.2.The Controller of Finance (Revenue), Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.25, Sathyamurthy Road, Chennai-31. 1 cc to Mr.V.Manoharan, Advocate, Sr.No.194181 cc to Mr.R.Subramanian, Advocate, Sr.No.19420 Order in W.P.No.6722 of 2011 PUR {CO}TP/31.3.2011.