M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemical Limited v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated 11.6.2012CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARWrit Petition No.14575 of 2012andM.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemical Limited,having registered office at 57, Sterling Road,Nungambakkam,Chennai-600 034,represented by its Director,Mr.A.Chennimalai. ... Petitioner vs.1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Superintending Engineer, Thiruvannamalai Electricity Distribution Circle, (TNGEDCO), Thiruvannamalai. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, callingfor the records of the impugned order passed by the second respondentin and by his Lr.No.SET/T/AE2/D6/F.HIGL/D963/11-12, dated 02.03.2012,and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to giveconsent to the petitioner's Sugar Mill, situated at KaraipoondiVillage, Polur, Thiruvannamalai District to draw electricity supplyfrom its own co-generating unit to the staff quarters of thepetitioner's Sugar Mill.For petitioner : Mr.A.L.Somayaji,Senior Counselfor Mr.V.Bharathidasan,For respondents: Mr.Varunkumar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E RThis Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugnedorder passed by the second respondent in and by hisLr.No.SET/T/AE2/D6/F.HIGL/D963/11-12, dated 02.03.2012, and quash thesame and consequently directing the respondents to give consent tothe petitioner's Sugar Mill, situated at Karaipoondi Village, Polur,Thiruvannamalai District to draw electricity supply from its own co-generating unit to the staff quarters of the petitioner's Sugar Mill.2. Mr.Varunkumar, learned counsel takes notice on behalf ofthe respondents. By consent the writ petition is taken up forfinal disposal. 3. The impugned order declined the request of the petitionerto grant the relief of extension of LT supply from the petitioner'sco-generation to the Staff Quarters. This rejection is by way of anon-speaking order, in spite of no objection given by the HighwaysDepartment by order dated 29.7.2011. The order does not containreasons and it is not a speaking order as to why the request isdeclined.4. 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 itwhile 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 an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ administrative 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 naturaljustice 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 the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Administrative 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."5. In view of the above reason the impugned order is set asideand the second respondent Superintending Engineer is directed toreconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the noobjection given by the Highways Department and pass a speaking orderon merits after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to thepetitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order. 6. The writ petition is ordered as above. No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrartsTo1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Superintending Engineer,Thiruvannamalai Electricity Distribution Circle,(TNGEDCO),Thiruvannamalai. + 1 cc to Mr. V. Bharathidasan, SR.32437 W.P.No.14575 of 2012RJ(CO)Eu 20.6.12