Back
1971 Supreme(AP) 154
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.SAMBASIVA RAO
M.Ramanarasiah - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 08-06-71
The discretionary power conferred on the Government under Rule 29 is coupled with a duty to perform it under certain circumstances and in accordance with certain principles. Simply because it has a discretionary power, it does not exonerate the Government from discharging the duty of considering the petition.
Headnote:
EXCISE - REMISSION OF RENTALS - DISCRETIONARY POWER OF GOVERNMENT - EXERCISE OF - CONDITIONS - ARBITRARY REJECTION OF APPLICATIONS - GOVERNMENT ORDERS QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, lessees of Sendhi group of shops for the excise year 1969-70, applied for remission of monthly rentals due to severe cyclonic storms hitting the area for 34 days. The Government rejected their applications, stating that the rules in force at the time of auction did not provide for remission and that the cyclone effect must have been felt in the entire district, not just in the area covered by the petitioners' shops.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Government's orders were arbitrary and unreasonable, as the grounds for rejection were irrelevant and non-existent. The court emphasized that the Government has a discretionary power under Rule 29 of the Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licensee General conditions) Rules, but this power must be exercised objectively and fairly, considering the merits of each application and in accordance with the provisions of the rule.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government has the discretionary power to remit rentals under Rule 29 of the Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licensee General conditions) Rules? 2. Whether the Government's rejection of the petitioners' applications was arbitrary and unreasonable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Government has a discretionary power under Rule 29 to remit rentals, but this power is conditioned by the provisions of the rule and must be exercised objectively and fairly. 2. The court found that the Government's rejection of the petitioners' applications was arbitrary and unreasonable as the grounds for rejection were irrelevant and non-existent.
Final Decision: The court quashed the Government's orders and remitted the applications back to the Government for consideration on merits in accordance with the principles laid down by the court.
( 1 ) THESE are two writ petitions which may be conveniently disposed of under a single order since they raise an identical question.
( 2 ) THE petitioners were given the lease of the Sendhi group of shops for the excise year 1969-70. Alleging that the area was hit by severe cyclonic storms on four occasions for 34 days spreading over from 16-10-1969 to 19-12-1969, they applied to the Government under Rule 129 of the Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licensee General conditions) Rules for remission of the monthly rentals. The Government after calling for reports from the local officers, rejected their applications by its orders dated 28th and 29th of September, 1970. It is to quash these orders the present Writ Petitions have been filed.
( 3 ) IT is argued for the petitioners that the orders of the Government are highly arbitrary, based on irrelevant considerations and should, therefore, be set aside. On the other hand, the Government contends that the power under Rule 29 is purely a discretionary one and when the Government refused to comply with the petitioners request for remission, this Court cannot interfere in the matter.
( 4 ) TO adjudicate upon this dispute, it is a necessary to read the said Rule 29. It is as follows:"29. POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO POSTPONE OR DEFER PAYMENT OF RENTAL: The Government may, by order, postpone the payment of rental or defer its collection, or reduce or remit the rental for any period for all or any of the following reasons, namely; (a) natural calamities, like floods, cyclones, fire famine, failure of seasonal conditions and like damages leading to loss of income to the shop; (b) wide-spread disturbed conditions irrespective of the cause for the disturbance resulting in loss of income o a shop and (c) non-availability of arrack or toddy, for reasons which in the opinion of the Commissioner, are completely beyond the control of the licensee".
( 5 ) IT is seen that the Government is conferred with the power either to postpone the payment or defer the collection of rental or to reduce or remit the rental for any period of the lease. It will have to do so by an order. Even this power cannot be exercised indiscriminately. It can be done only if one or more of the three circumstances mentioned in the rules exist. Clause (a) enumerates one set of circumstances such as natural calamities like floods, cyclones, fire etc. clause (b) states the second set of reasons like wide-spread disturbed conditions; and Clause (c) refers to another set of circumstances like non-availability of arrack or today, for reasons beyond the control of the licensee. The Government will have to exercise the power in accordance with the provisions of this rule and only if one r more of the circumstances mentioned therein exist.
( 6 ) IT is the case of the petitioners than in Khammam area where their shops are situate. there were severe cyclonic storms on as many as four occasions, spread over 34 days from 16-10-1969 to 19-12-1969. It is stated that in consequence of these cyclones, the business of the petitioners was interrupted. Further, the cyclones severally damaged the trees allotted to the petitioners. A large number of trees were uprooted or otherwise completely damaged. In the case of trees on which incisions had been made, the rain water seeped in and destroyed the soft fibres inside. As a direct consequence worms set in. In that manner, a large number of trees were rendered unfit for tapping. As a consequence of all this, the petitioners have suffered heavy monetary loss.
( 7 ) IN their counter, the respondents admitted that there wee rains from 16-0-1969 to 19-10-1969 and 22-11-1969 to 23-11-1969. It was also agreed that there were strong winds on 7-11q-1969 to 14-12-1969 and thereafter continuous rain again from 12-12-1969 to 17-12-1969. It is in the light of these averments in the counter, the impugned order will have to be read and understood. It is in the following terms:"in the Petition cited Shri R.
