Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 7939
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Mr.Justice P.Dhanabal, J
muthu – Appellant
Versus
the executive magistrate/ ta – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.4046 of 2025
Mr.M.Anandakumar for Mr.V.Selvakumar; Mr.N.Senthil Ayyanar No.1 Government Advocate; Mr.M.Suresh for Mr.L.Prabakaran
Procedural fairness requires that parties must be given an opportunity to present their case and that evidence must be recorded before any adverse administrative decision is made.
Headnote:(A) BNSS Act - Sections 152(1), 157, and 270 - Writ Petition to quash the order of the respondent regarding the operation of a prawn farm - The petitioner alleged procedural violations in the issuance of the order without evidence or opportunity to be heard - The court emphasized the necessity of following due process and recording evidence before passing final orders. (Paras 2, 6, 9)
(B) Natural Justice - The principle of natural justice mandates that parties must be given an opportunity to present their case before any adverse order is made against them. (Paras 2, 6)
(C) Judicial Precedent - The court relied on prior judgments emphasizing the need for evidence and procedural adherence in administrative orders. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner operated a prawn farm and sought to quash an order issued based on complaints of sanitation issues, asserting that the order was passed without following due process.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the first respondent failed to follow procedural requirements and did not record evidence before passing the order.
Issues: Whether the order was valid given the lack of opportunity for the petitioner and evidence recording.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the order was invalid as it did not adhere to procedural fairness and failed to take evidence, reaffirming that administrative decisions must respect the principles of natural justice.
Result: Writ Petition allowed; order set aside and matter remanded for fresh proceedings.
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned Order passed by the respondent vide R.C.No. 5076/2024/A9 on 07.02.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to run the prawn farm situated in Survey No. 349/3, 349/7, 349/9, 349/10 and 349/13 situated at Raja Thoppu Village, Manalmelkudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is running a prawn farm in Survey Nos. 349/3,349/7,349/9,349/10 and 349/13 situated at Raja Thoppu Streetm Manalmedi Taluk, Pudukottai District. Every year the petitioner is renewing the required permission without fail. The District Collector, Pudukottai issued a public notice instructing all prawn farms in Manalmelkudi and Avudaiyarkovil Taluks to register or renew their registration immediately immediately the petitioner submitted an application on 30.12.2024 along with necessary documents and the registration renewal process is in progress. Due to some previous enmity against the petitioner complaint was lodged to the respondents alleging that the prawn farm is causing sanitation issues in Raja Thoppu Village. Based on the false complaint the respondent issued notice on 28.01.2025 under Section 152(1) of BNSS and notice under Sections 326(C), and Section 270 (Public Nuisance) and Section 279(Fouling Water of Public Spring or Reservoir) of BNSS Act . Thereafter the petitioner also gave an explanation and thereafter without following procedure under Section 157 of BNSS and without recording evidence the authority has straight away passed the impugned order, therefore there is a procedural violation and no any opportunity was given to the petitioner and without following the natural justice order has been passed. Therefore the order passed by the first respondent is liable to be quashed.
3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent would submit that the petitioner without having licence is running prawn farm and without following rules causing water pollution and thereby complaint was lodged and the District Collector issued public notice. Based on the complaint they issued notice under Section 152(1) of BNSS. Thereafter the petitioner appeared and submitted his explanation and only after hearing the petitioner they had passed the order. However no evidence has been taken in this regard. The petitioner without exhausting remedy before the Revenue Divisional Officer straight away filed this petition, therefore the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 would submit that this petitioner without license and without following procedures under pollution laws was running prawn farm and they are causing nuisance to the public and thereby lodged complaint and the respondents also have taken appropriate steps
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. The main contention of the petitioner is that no opportunity was given to the petitioner after issuing notice to the petitioner under Section 152(1) of BNSS. Opportunity was not given to the petitioner and evidence was also not taken before passing final orders, hence the order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention he relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ind Bharah Powergencom Ltd .vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum , wherein this Court in has observed as follows:
52. A conspectus of the materials available in this proceeding in the light of the illuminating judicial pronouncements, would pave way to emerge with following points which indicate that the impugned order suffers from certain legal infirmities:
.............
e) The Executive Magistrate shall take evidence as in a summons case in terms of Section 138, after the persons appear to show cause against the order passed under Section 133 Cr.PC and on considering the materials available, the Execut
