THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.12726 OF 2010 DATED:08.06.2010 Between: T.Vasantha .. Petitioner And The District Collector, Chittoor and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.12726 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a dealer of Fair Price Shop (FPS) No.15 of Valmikipuram Village. The third respondent who is the disciplinary authority initiated action under Clause 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (Control Order) and issued a show-cause notice dated 04.10.2007 alleging certain contraventions in running the FPS and framed two charges against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 18.10.2007. Rejecting the explanation, the third respondent cancelled the authorization by proceedings dated 14.07.2009. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Clause 20(1) of the Control Order. The second respondent by an order dated 18.01.2010 rejected the appeal. The petitioner then preferred a revision under Clause 21 of the Control Order. The same having been dismissed by the impugned order dated 23.04.2010, the petitioner is before this Court assailing the revisional order. This Court heard counsel for the petitioner and the Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. A perusal of the revisional order would show that the petitioner has raised two substantial grounds but curiously the same were not considered by the first respondent. However, observing that the authority heard the arguments and produced the records, the revision petition was dismissed. There are no reasons to appreciate as to how the mind of the revisional authority was applied to the grounds made in support of the revision petition. In an unreported judgment in K. Santha Kumar v The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle, Chittoor District[1], this Court considered the question regarding the validity of revisional order which is not supported by reasons. Holding that the revisional order passed by the District Collector under Clause 21 of the Control Order, without reasons, is unsustainable, this Court made the following observations. The order of cancellation is made appealable to the second respondent under Clause 20 of Control Order to Collector (Civil Supplies), which means Joint Collector under the relevant delegation of powers order. Against the order of Joint Collector, revision lies to District Collector under Clause 21 of Control Order. A reading of Clauses 5(5), 20 and 21 of Control Order makes it clear that any order of suspension or cancellation of authorization must be for the reasons to be recorded in writing. When once relevant statute contemplates recording of reasons, it goes without saying that the person against whom an adverse order is passed is entitled to be communicated with those reasons. The authorities under the Control Order may not strictly exercise quasi-judicial powers but when the cancellation is effected, it is likely to result in stigma to FPS dealer for reasons more than one. Therefore the dealer has right to know the reasons. In addition every quasi-judicial or administrative order subject to inherent limitations is amenable to judicial review. Unless reasons are disclosed the judicial review Court would not be in a position to effectively review the order. Therefore, recording of reasons by revisional authority is mandatory. Even as per the precedents, it is now well settled that every executive action, be it an action based on subjective or objective satisfaction of the authority, must be supported by reasons. It is also well settled that in all cases and in all situations reasons should be communicated to the person at whose instance a decision is taken. May be some decisions taken by the executives do not require any reasons. Some times, the policy laid down by the political executive would itself be a sufficient reason for executive action. However, it must be noted that when an action is taken under a statute and statute itself specifically requires a decision to be supported by reasons, all such decisions should be supported by reasons. Even in a situation of statutory silence, disclosure and communication of reasons, is minimum requirement of rule of law although there may be extension to general rule. A reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.N. Mukherjee v Union of India[2] and Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v Jagdish Sharan Varshney[3]. In S.N. Mukherjee (supra) a question arose whether the Government of India while exercising power of revision/review under the provisions of the Army Act, 1950, is required to record reasons. The court considered two questions: (i) Is there any general principle of law which requires an administrative authority to record the reasons for the decision arrived at? and (ii) If so, does the said principle apply to an order confirming the findings and sentence of Court Marshall and post-confirmation proceedings under the Act? After referring to the precedents in other jurisdictions like U.S.A. and U.K. as well as the precedents of the Supreme Court, the court came to the conclusion that non-disclosure of reasons for an administrative decision violates the principles of natural justice. Though there is a general rule for recording reasons, there is no general rule that reasons should be communicated in every case. It depends on the nature of the power exercised. When quasi-judicial power is exercised, it goes without saying that reasons not only have to be recorded but must be communicated to the aggrieved person. The same is not the case when the authorities exercise administrative powers. When the recording of reasons is either explicitly or impliedly dispensed with by the statutory or authorized instrument, it is not necessary to record reasons. The relevant passage from the said judgment must be excerpted, which is as under. The object underlying the rules of natural justice “is to prevent miscarriage of justice” and secure “fair play in action”. As pointed out earlier the requirement about recording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. Keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion, that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The extent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework whereunder jurisdiction has been conferred on the administrative authority. With regard to the exercise of a particular power by an administrative authority including exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions the legislature, while conferring the said power, may feel that it would not be in the larger public interest that the reasons for the order passed by the administrative authority be recorded in the order and be communicated to the aggrieved party and it may dispense with such a requirement. (emphasis supplied) I n Jagdish Sharan Varshney (supra), the Supreme Court considered the question whether appellate order of confirmation does not require any reasons. Relying on S.N. Mukherjee (supra), Divl. Forest Officer v Madhusudhan Rao[4], Seimens Engg. & Mfg. Co of India Ltd v Union of India[5] and M.P. Industries Ltd v Union of India[6], the Supreme Court reiterated the principle as under. In our opinion, an order of affirmation need not contain as elaborate reasons as an order of reversal, but that does not mean that the order of affirmation need not contain any reasons whatsoever. In fact, the said decision in Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v Prabhu Dayal Grover, (1995) 6 SCC 279, has itself stated that the appellate order should disclose application of mind. Whether there was an application of mind or not can only be disclosed by some reasons, at least in brief, mentioned in the order of the appellate authority. Hence, we cannot accept the proposition that an order of affirmation need not contain any reasons at all. That order must contain some reasons, at least in brief, so that one can know whether the appellate authority has applied its mind while affirming the order of the disciplinary authority. As noticed supra, the impugned order does not contain any reasons. The sustainability of the revisional grounds was not considered. The legal position is not seriously disputed. In view of the above, at the stage of admission itself, the Writ Petition is disposed of and the impugned order passed by the District Collector is set aside. The matter is remitted to the District Collector with a direction to dispose of the revision petition within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, duly giving reasons for the conclusions and communicate the same to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 08.06.2010 Note:- Dispatch order copy by 11.06.2010 (B/o) KH [1] W.P.No.6976 of 2010, dated 31.03.2010 [2] AIR 1990 SC 1984 [3] (2009) 4 SCC 240 [4] (2008) 3 SCC 469 [5] (1976) 2 SCC 981 : AIR 1976 SC 1785 [6] AIR 1966 SC 671