Malkiat Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

G.S. Singhvi, J.—This petition has been filed for quashing of the order Annexure P-5 dated 4.3.1999 passed by the Collector-cum-Executive Engineer, R&B Division, P.W.D. (B&R Branch), Jalandhar Cantt. by which he has been asked to determine the alleged unauthorised construction raised by him.

A perusal of the record shows that after issuing notice u/s 143(1) of the Punjab Regional Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), the authority concerned passed the impugned order on the premise that the construction raised by the petitioner is unauthorised.

The main ground on which the petitioner has assailed the legality of the impugned order is that he was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing and that the said order is not a speaking order.

In the written statement filed by the respondents in the form of an affidavit of the Sub-Divisional Engineer, P.W.D. (B&R Branch), Jalandhar Cantt. and the additional affidavit filed today in the Court by the Collector-cum-Executive Engineer an attempt has been made to show that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to produce the evidence to prove that the construction made by him is not contrary to the provisions of the Act but he failed to avail the same.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, it is not necessary to consider the various points raised by the petitioner for invalidation of the impugned order because we are satisfied that the same deserves to be nullified solely on the ground that it is not a speaking order.

The necessity of recording reasons by quasi judicial authority and communication thereof to the affected person has been recognised by the Supreme Court and various High Courts. Some of the decisions which can be usefully referred to in support of this proposition are:-

Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala and Others, ;

Bharat Raja Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Others, ;

3 Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, ;

Travancore Rayon Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI), ;

Ajantha Industries and Others Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi and Others, ;

The Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Another, ;

S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, ;

M.L. Jaggi Vs. Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Ltd. and others, ;

Testeels Ltd. Vs. N.M. Desai and Another, ;

M/s Brij Bassi Hitech Udyog Limited v. State of Punjab and Ors. (1997)104 P.L.R. 538;

If the impugned order is examined in the light of the proposition laid down in the aforementioned decisions, it is not at all difficult for us to record a conclusion that the same is liable to be quashed on the ground that it is a non-speaking order. The Collector-cum-Executive Engineer has recorded 1-1/2 page order but the only substantive observation made in the entire order is contained in the following lines:-

"Whereas the petitioner has proved his case there, the respondent has failed to defend the case."

In our opinion, the manner in which the Collector-cum-Executive Engineer has dealt with and decided the issue relating to unauthorised construction is totally arbitrary and the direction given by him is liable to be nullified on the ground of violation of the basic principles of natural justice. We are further of the opinion that the officer concerned has failed to apply his mind to the evidence available with the department to prove that the disputed construction has been raised in violation of the Act or any other statute justifying its demolition and, therefore, the bald conclusion recorded by him cannot be sustained.

For the reasons above, the writ petition is allowed. The order Annexure P-5 is quashed with liberty to the competent authority to pass a fresh order. In order to obviate delay in the passing of the fresh order, we direct the petitioner to appear before the Col-lector-Cum-Executive Engineer on 17.1.2000 and who shall, after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to him which shall necessarily include an opportunity to adduce evidence, pass the final order within next two months.

Copy of the order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of fee prescribed for urgent application.