Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Dhirender Kumar Singh - Appellant
Versus
South Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P.(C) 3754 of 2021
Decided On : 18-05-2021
Administrative orders must contain explicit reasoning; failure to provide such reasoning invalidates the order, necessitating reconsideration.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Nature of Orders - The court addressed the requirement for administrative orders to contain reasons and not be supplemented by additional explanations outside of the order itself. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order directing payment of arrears towards monthly license fee, arguing that the fee was excessively charged due to limitations on the parking site caused by the local authority. (Paras 2, 5, 12)
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was deemed unsustainable as it lacked reasoning for rejecting the petitioner's representation, necessitating a remittance for fresh consideration. (Paras 17, 18)
Issues: Whether the administrative order provided sufficient reasoning for its decision and whether the petitioner was entitled to an adjustment of the license fee. (Paras 16, 13)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that administrative orders must articulate their reasoning, and failure to do so renders the decision invalid, thus remanding the matter for reconsideration. (Paras 17, 18)
Result: Petition allowed, matter remitted for fresh consideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of parking site license fee dispute (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. arguments regarding fee adjustments (Para 13 , 14) |
| 3. court's observations on administrative order requirements (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. remittance to reconsider representation (Para 18) |
| 5. court's final order and directives (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
CM APPLN. 11316/2021 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 3754/2021
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner impugns order dated 04.03.2021 whereby the representation of the petitioner has been dismissed and the petitioner has been directed to remit an amount of Rs.57,59,529/- towards the arrears of monthly licence fee plus admissible interest of Rs.25,33,732/-.
3. Issue Notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel for the Respondent. With the consent of the parties the petition is taken up for final disposal.
4. Petitioner was allotted a parking site with effect from 02.03.2017 at a monthly licence fee of Rs.12,76,999/-.
5. Petitioner made a representation that on account of 50-60% of the parking site not been in operation due to Tehbazari and installation of benches in the parking area by SDMC, the parking fee be reduced.
6. An inspection was carried by the Officers of the respondent-Corporation and they found that the area affected by Tehbazari and installation of benches was 1540 sq. mtrs out of total area 5329 sq. and accordingly competent authority decided to reduce the monthly licence fee from Rs.12,76,999/- to Rs.9,14,440/- per month with immediate effect.
7. Consequent to the decision of the competent authority, excess security deposit calculated @ Rs.12,76,999/- was directed to be adjusted towards arrears of licence fee.
8. Petitioner gave a representation on 24.08.2020 seeking a further adjustment by adjusting the excess differential paid by the petitioner for the period from 22.03.2017 till 12.12.2017.
9. This request was not considered. Accordingly, petitioner filed W.P. (C) 6180/2020 before this Court.
10. This Court by order dated 05.10.2020 directed the petition to be treated as a representation and after giving an opportunity of hearing to be disposed of.
11. Subject impugned order has been passed consequent to the directions issued in the said writ petition on 05.10.2020.
12. Perusal of the representation given by the petitioner shows that the petitioner's grievance is with regard to non-adjustment of the alleged excess amount paid for the period between when the parking site was allotted to the petitioner and till the time decision was taken by the competent authority and communicated to the petitioner on 12.12.2017.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the decision of the competent authority was prospective and not retrospective as is evident from letter dated 12.12.2017. He further submits that the petitioner had, without any demur, paid the monthly licence fee till the decision was taken. He accordingly submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any adjustment of the said amount. He further submits that the petitioner defaulted in making the payment after the amount was reduced. He further submits that first time a representation was received on 24.08.2020 seeking an adjustment of the amount paid by him for the earlier period.
14. This is disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner.
15. Be that as it may, perusal of the impugned order shows that all the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent justifying the impugned order do not find a mention in the impugned order.
16. It is a settled position of law that an administrative order has to speak for itself and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of an affidavit or otherwise. The reasons have to be contained in the order itself.1
17. Clearly impugned order not only does not contain any reason for rejecting the representation of the Petitioner b
