Civil Writ Petition No.3141 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3141 of 2010 Date of Decision:02.05.2011 Sudhir Kumar ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.H.S.Diwana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Palwinder Singh, Sr.Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Surinder Kapoor, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Nemo for respondent No.4. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The petitioner was stated to have misused the property, in question, and was running the business of Banquet Hall in violations of the terms and conditions of sanction of the approved site plan. Instead of following the statutory provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”), the Executive Engineer of Nagar Council Khamanon-respondent No.3(for short “the respondent-Council”) issued a single-line impugned order dated 22.01.2010(Annexure P-6), which in substance is, as under:- “It is written to you on the above subject that the Sunil Banquet Hall functioning in Ward No.2 Khamanon shall be closed at once and in case of failure to do so, necessary legal action will be initiated against you and you will yourself be responsible for the same.” 2. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned order(Annexure P-6), invoking the provisions Civil Writ Petition No.3141 of 2010 2 of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 4. As is evident from the record that the respondent-Council claimed that the petitioner misused the property, in question, and was running the business of Banquet Hall, in violations of the terms and conditions of the approved site plan. 5. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that if the petitioner has violated any terms and conditions of the approved site plan, then the respondent- Council cannot straightway issue non-speaking draconian impugned order (Annexure P-6), has considerable force. 6. As is clear that Section 192 of the Act deals with the punishment of erection or re-erection of a building, in view of sanction of the building scheme. The respondent-Council has the power to direct modification of a sanctioned plan or a building before its completion. Sections 195 and 196 of the Act empowers the Committee to impose penalty for disobedience of such orders and claim compensation. 7. Sequelly, Section 219 of the Act authorises the Committee to impose penalty and claim compensation for such violations. That means, although the respondent-Council has the power to punish a person for such violations, but that power has to be exercised, in accordance with law, and not otherwise. The respondent-Council ought to have issued a statutory notice to the petitioner and then pass an appropriate order, after affording him an opportunity of hearing. The Executive Engineer of the respondent-Council, did not have the jurisdiction to straightway issue the single-line impugned order(Annexure P-6), directing the petitioner to close the Banquet Hall, even without indicating any ground in this respect. Civil Writ Petition No.3141 of 2010 3 8. It is now well-settled principle of law that every action of such authorities must be informed by reasons. The order must be fair, clear, reasonable and in the interest of fair play. Every order must be confined and structured by the rational and relevant material on record, because the valuable rights of the parties are involved. 9. The importance of passing speaking and reasoned order was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank V. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 240 has held(para 8) as under:- “The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in S.N.Mukherjee V. Union of India, is that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority has applied its mind or not? Also, giving of reasons minimizes the chances of arbitrariness. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in a judicial or quasi- judicial order, even if it is an order of affirmation.” 10. Therefore, since, the impugned order(Annexure P-6) is a cryptic, non-speaking order and was passed at the back of the petitioner, so, it cannot legally be maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant writ petition is hereby accepted. The impugned order(Annexure P-6) is set aside in this regard. 12. Needless to mention here that, the respondent-Council, may initiate legal action against the petitioner, in case, the violations of terms and conditions of approved site plan are not stopped, after issuing him notice and providing opportunity of hearing, in accordance with law, in this relevant connection. May 02, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE