ORDER (Oral)

…

SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J):-

1. By means of present O.A. the applicant assails order dated

22.01.2018 (Annexure A-1), whereby respondents have decided to recover an amount of Rs.2,48,699/- on account of alleged excess payment of TRCA for the period July 2010 to September 2017, in monthly installments of Rs.2000/- per month.

2. Though the applicant has taken various grounds for invalidation of impugned order, but star one pressed is that before passing of impugned order of recovery, which is having civil consequences, he was neither put on notice nor given any opportunity of hearing, therefore, the same being violative of principles of natural justice is liable to be quashed and set aside.

3. After exchange of pleadings, matter came up for hearing today when counsel for the respondents was not in position to support the impugned order or rebut contention of counsel for the applicant that it has been passed without putting the applicant on notice and in violation of principles of natural justice.

4. In view of the above, we are in agreement with the submissions made at the hands of the counsel for the applicant that the impugned order, having civil consequences, has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. As per law settled by the Apex dispensation, an order which involves civil consequences, has to have reasons, for non-grant of particular benefit so that the person, whose right has been taken away, can challenge the same in a judicial forum. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Because if the reasons are given, it will be easier for the applicant to challenge the order effectively before the Court of law by concentrating only on those points which did not find favour with the authority.

5. Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union (1971)

1 All ER 1148, observed “The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration”. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. V. Crabtree 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC) it was observed “Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice”. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at”. The same view has been expressed by Lordship in case of Raj Kishore Jha versus State of Bihar & Others, 2003(11) CC 519 has again be reiterated in Ram Phal Vs. State of Haryana, 2009(3) SCC 258, decided on 6.2.2009 stating that “reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Without the same, it becomes lifeless”. The impugned order is neither passed by following the principles of natural justice nor gives any reasons and as such is illegal.

6. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we arrive at a conclusion that impugned order cannot stand on the touchstone of principles of natural justice, accordingly, it is hereby quashed and set aside. Matter is, however, remitted back to the respondents to pass a fresh order by giving reasons, which be duly communicated to the applicant.

7. The O.A. along with MAs stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

(P. GOPINATH) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)

Date: 21.12.2018. Place: Chandigarh.

‘KR’