IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P. NO.34168 of 2006 K.Thangavelu .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Assistant Executive Engineer, (Agricultural Engineering), Soil Conservation Scheme, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, (Agricultural Engineering) Govt. Tractor Workshop, Madurai – 625 104 .. Respondents PRAYER : Original Application No.9609 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 1st respondent in A.406/96 dated 31.10.98 and quash the same. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajendran For Respondents : Mr.S.Shivashanmugam, Government Advocate. O R D E R Original Application No.9609 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 1st respondent in A.406/96 dated 31.10.98 and quash the same. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. 2.The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,400/- stating that it is loss caused to the Department. There are two letters referred in the impugned proceedings, which have been enclosed in the reply https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ affidavit. On a reading of the two letters, it is not clear, as to why the petitioner is called upon to pay the said sum of Rs.10,400/-. The impugned proceedings is bereft of details as how the loss was caused. In any event, no show cause notice has been issued as to the basis on which the respondent demand the said payment. It contains no reasons, for the alleged loss and the basis on which the amount has been determined. In such view of the matter, the order without reasons is bad. There is a violation of principles of natural justice in as much as no notice was issued to the petitioner. The impugned proceeding is therefore liable to be interfered with. The learned Government Advocate relied upon the reply affidavit to explain the reason for the demand. 3. It is trite law that the case of the respondents cannot be improved on the basis of the reply-affidavit or the written submissions vide Mohinder Singh Gill and another – v. - The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others AIR 1978 Supreme Court 851 and S.N.Mukherjee – v. - Union of India (1990)4 SCC 594. In para 8 of the decision in AIR 1978 SC 851 reads as follows:- "8. 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 validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J., in Gordhandas Bhani (AIR 1952 SC 16)(at p.18): "Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself". https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older." Para 36 in (1990)4 SCC 594 reads thus:- "36. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision on judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage." In this case the above principle will squarely apply. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.For the above said reasons, the impugned order is set aside. The respondent Department is however at liberty to take action as per law if necessary. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. vsm Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1. The Assistant Executive Engineer, (Agricultural Engineering), Soil Conservation Scheme, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, (Agricultural Engineering) Govt. Tractor Workshop, Madurai – 625 104 + 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.7383 MBS(CO) SR/25.2.2010 W.P. NO.34168 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/