Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 19 (UTT)

Baasler International v. Director of Industries

2015-01-08

U.C.DHYANI

body2015
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15.12.2014, passed by respondent no. 3. A writ in the nature of mandamus has also been sought commanding respondents collectively and severally to permit the petitioner to execute the lease deed with B.A.A. and Sons, the original allottee. 2) In the first round of litigation, writ petition no. 728 (M/S) of 2013 was filed by the present petitioner against respondent no. 3, General Manager, District Industry Centre, Roorkee, District Haridwar, challenging the order dated 03.04.2013, passed by said respondent, whereby the petitioner was asked to close down the industry, in as much as he had violated the Government Order dated 30.05.2005. 3) Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order on the grounds, inter alia, that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and, therefore, there was violation of the principle of natural justice. 4) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, writ petition no. 728 (M/S) of 2013 was disposed of by quashing the impugned order dated 03.04.2013 and directing the respondent no. 3 to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to other affected persons in accordance with law. Such an order was passed on 12.12.2013. 5) On 15.12.2014, respondent no. 3 passed an order after hearing the petitioner only. Intervener did not appear before respondent no. 3 and hence, the order was passed in his absence. Neither any notice was sent to the intervener, nor did he appear in person on his own before the said authority. 6) Respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 15.12.2014, passed the following order: “Sri Gulshan Munir Ansari (tenant) M/s Baasler International B-1, Industrial Aasthan, Ramnagar, Roorkee, District Haridwar. Kindly refer to your letter dated 28.07.2014, which relates to permission for rent lease. In compliance of order dated 12.12.2013 of the Hon’ble High Court at Nainital, your representation was heard on 25.08.2014. The matter was referred to the Directorate with your consent. Since O.S. no. 123 of 2014 is pending adjudication before Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Roorkee, therefore, it is not possible to give the permission for rent lease. In compliance of order dated 12.12.2013 of the Hon’ble High Court at Nainital, your representation was heard on 25.08.2014. The matter was referred to the Directorate with your consent. Since O.S. no. 123 of 2014 is pending adjudication before Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Roorkee, therefore, it is not possible to give the permission for rent lease. Hence, you are requested to shift your Unit elsewhere within 21 days of the receipt of this letter so that further action may be initiated.” 7) The aforesaid order can hardly be said to be a reasoned and speaking order. Merely because an Original Suit was pending before Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Roorkee, that can hardly be said to be a reason for declining the relief prayed for in the representation of the petitioner. Respondent no. 3 ought to have disclosed the reasons as to why he was not inclined to grant relief to the petitioner. He should have disclosed the reasons as to why he is denying such relief to the petitioner. Merely because a matter is subjudice before a Court and no interim order is passed for or against the petitioner, the same does not mean that the representation should not be decided either way merely because a relief in respect thereof has been prayed for in the Original Suit, even if, there is any. 8) The wheel has turned full circle. The situation is back to square one. In other words, the situation is as it was when the order dated 12.12.2013 was passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in writ petition no. 728 (M/S) of 2013. It is, therefore, desired that respondent no. 3 should again be requested to pass a speaking and reasoned order on the representation of the petitioner. 9) A judicial or quasi judicial authority has to bear in mind that reasons are vehicles of expression. They convey what is in your mind which makes it convenient for the authority exercising judicial review of administrative action to understand what is in the mind of such judicial, quasi judicial or administrative authority and save precious time of the Court. 10) Present Writ Petition no. 2855 (M/S) of 2014 is, therefore, decided by quashing the impugned order dated 15.12.2014 and by remanding the matter again to respondent no. 10) Present Writ Petition no. 2855 (M/S) of 2014 is, therefore, decided by quashing the impugned order dated 15.12.2014 and by remanding the matter again to respondent no. 3 to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the representation of the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as other affected persons, including the intervener, in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear either in person or through counsel before respondent no. 3 on 23.01.2015, at 10:30 A.M. Respondent no. 3 shall conduct day-to-day hearing on the representation and objections thereon and make an endeavour to dispose of such representation at an earliest possible, preferably by 23.02.2015. No order as to costs. 11) Let copies of this order be provided to learned counsel for the parties within a week on payment of usual charges.