S.A. Jhan Mohammed vs The Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and The Superintending Engineer Madras Electricity Distribution

P.K. Misra, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.

This writ petition is directed against the assessment order passed by the Executive Engineer as confirmed by the Superintending Engineer-

Respondent No. 2. It is contended in this writ petition as was done in the appeal before the appellate authority-the Respondent No. 2, that before

passing the assessment order, the Executive Engineer had not given any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. It is further contended that though

the Petitioner had filed his explanation stating that due to fire certain machines and motors had been taken to a different place for the purpose of

repair and rewinding, such an explanation has not been considered either by the Executive Engineer or by the Respondent No. 2.

A counter affidavit, which had been prepared long back, is filed only today by the Respondents. Though such lackadaisical attitude is not to be

encouraged, as a special case in the interest of justice, I accept the counter affidavit in the present case. In the counter affidavit the Respondent has

tried to justify the impugned order by referring to other grounds which are not reflected in the order of the appellate authority.

Law is fairly well settled that ""public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations

subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by

public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must

be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.

Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji,

The authorities cannot subsequently change the reasonings given in the order and the order passed must stand or fall on the basis of the reasonings

incorporated in the order.

In the present case, the assertion that the Petitioner had not been given any opportunity has not been rebutted. Moreover, neither the order of

the Executive Engineer nor the appellate authority refers to the explanation given by the Petitioner to the effect that due to fire the machines and

motors had been damaged and taken to a different place for repairs. The order of the appellate authority cannot be said to be a speaking order

and it appears that the appellate authority has merely referred the order of the First authority and confirmed the same. Therefore, the impugned

order dated 17.5.1995 cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside.

Since no opportunity had been given to the Petitioner while quashing the impugned order, I direct that the Executive Engineer should consider

the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. It is made clear that no opinion has been expressed on the merits of the

contentions raised by the counsel for both the parties and the Executive Engineer is free to take any decision in accordance with law.

It appears that during the pendency of the writ petition, certain amount had been paid by the Petitioner as per the direction in the order of

assessment. The said amount shall he kept with the Respondent and necessary orders regarding adjustment or refund as the case may be, should

be made at the time of final decision by the concerned authority.

This writ petition is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.