M. Venkataraman vs The District Collector, The President and The President, Respondents (R3 impleaded as per order dated 01.03.2010 vide M.P(MD) No. 1 of 2009)

M. Venugopal, J.—The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition praying for an issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus in calling

for the records relating to the proceedings made in Na. Ka. No. U.E4/3140/2005 dated 09.01.2006 passed by the first Respondent and to quash

the same and consequently, to restrain the Respondents from implementing the said order.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the impugned order of the First Respondent dated 09.01.2006, in cancelling

the layout approval suffers from patent illegality and also from irregularity because of the simple fact that the First Respondent/District Collector

prior to the cancellation of the impugned order dated 09.01.2006 has not provided an opportunity to the concerned persons or the Petitioner as

per Sub-Section 2 of Section 202 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.

It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the First Respondent/District Collector has passed a vague order of

cancellation dated 09.01.2006 and in short, the said order is bereft of necessary details both in qualitative and in quantitative fashion. Expatiating

his submissions, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that if the impugned order of the First Respondent dated 09.01.2006 is given effect

to, it will cause irreparable loss and hardship to the Petitioner and therefore, prays for allowing the writ petition to prevent the aberration of justice.

A perusal of the impugned order dated 09.01.2006 passed by the First Respondent in Na. Ka. No. U.E4/3140/2005, candidly makes it clear

that the First Respondent/District Collector has passed the cancellation order by setting aside the layout approval granted by the Panchayat

President and this order of the First Respondent has been passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice, namely, by not obtaining the

explanation either from the Petitioner or the interested persons as per Section 202(2) of The Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.

At this stage, it is useful for the Court to refer to the ingredients of Section 202 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 which runs as follows:

Power to su spend or c ancel resolution, etc under the Act-(1)The Inspector may, by order in writing-

(i)suspend or cancel any resolution passed, order issued, or licence or permission granted, or (ii)prohibit the doing of any act which is about to be

done or is being done, in pursuance or under colour of this Act, if in his opinion,-

(a)such resolution, order licence, permission or act has not been legally passed, issued,granted or authorised, or

(b)such resolution, order licence, permission or act in excess of the powers conferred by this Act or any other law or an abuse of such powers or

is considered by the Inspector to be otherwise undesirable, or

(c)the execution of such resolution or order, or the continuance in force of such licence or permission or the doing of such act is likely to cause

danger to human life, health or safety, or is likely to lead to a riot or an affray;

Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall enable the Inspector to set aside any election which has been held.

(2)The Inspector shall, before taking action on any of the grounds referred to in Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) give the authority or person

concerned an opportunity for explanation.

(3)The power conferred on the Inspector under Clause (c) of Sub-section (1)may be exercised by the collector in accordance with the provisions

of that clause.

It is always desirable for an executive authority or an administrative authority to pass a reasonable and a speaking order in the matter in issue.

A reasoned order will have the appearance of the justice. At least an outline of process of reasoning should be there when an Executive Authority

or an Administrative Authority passes an order. But, to an aggrieved person, if a non speaking order is passed, then certainly he will be the

affected person since the said order will be an unjust one. However, an unreasoned order may appear to be a just to the person who passed the

same. Only if an Administrative Authority or an Executive Authority passes a reasonable and speaking order, then it will provide an opportunity to

the Higher forum or the Appellate forum to look into the matter in a threadbare fashion for the purpose of scrutinising as to whether the impugned

order passed by the concerned is in accordance with law or otherwise.

In view of the fact that the First Respondent/ District Collector has not provided an opportunity to explain the stand before passing the

impugned order dated 09.01.2006 and all the more, when the impugned order dated 09.01.2006 passed by the First Respondent is in negation of

Section 202(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,1994, this Court is perforced to interfere with the said order passed by the First Respondent

and accordingly, sets aside the same to promote the substantial cause of justice.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the order passed by the First

Respondent/District Collector is hereby set aside. The First Respondent/District Collector is directed to pass an order afresh in the subject matter

in issue after providing necessary opportunity as envisaged u/s 202(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,1994, by providing the same either to the

Petitioner or to the interested parties as the case may be, in accordance with law and in the manner known to law. Consequently, connected M.P.

(MD) No. 2 of 2007 is closed.