Vinay Pal Singh And Others vs Lieutenant Governor And Others

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J

The grievance of the writ petitioners is that, despite a previous order of a coordinate Bench of this court sitting in Circuit at Port Blair dated January 10, 2019, passed in WP No.309 of 2018, directing the Lieutenant Governor to take a decision on perusal of certain documents produced by the parties, regarding the veracity of cancellation of licence of the petitioners, the Lieutenant Governor has not taken any decision on the issue. Despite having applied for relevant documents under the Right to Information Act, the petitioners could only obtain some of the documents, which reveals that there was no adjudication by the Lieutenant Governor at all but merely some office records showing the minutes, which was recorded at the behest of the Assistant Secretary (Revenue), annexed at pages 140-144 of the instant writ petition. It is further argued that the original licence granted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners contained a clause that if the licencee fails to observe any condition specially mentioned in the licence or with any provisions of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulations,1966 and the rules made thereunder and in force at the time being, the granting authority may cancel or modify the licence forthwith as regards the whole or part of the land under licence.

It is argued that no such case has been made out at all in the instant matter.

On the contrary, under the 1996 Regulations, Regulation 146(ii) provides for grant a licence in writing to any person to occupy such land to such extent and for such purposes as may be prescribed, but it does not provide for any revocation or cancellation of such licence. The only provision for cancellation, as provided in Regulation 147, is if the licencee fails to construct the building on the site, for which the licence was granted, within a period of two years from the date of grant of such licence or further time as the Deputy Commissioner may allow, which is not applicable to the present case.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further relies on Regulation 148 of the 1996 Regulations, which provides that, subject to his personal law, the interest of a tenant in his holding shall, on his death, pass by inheritance, survivorship or bequest as the case may be.

The petitioners claim title by way of inheritance, although to only a share in the disputed property.

In answer to such arguments, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent, who was the complainant on the basis of whose complaint the proceeding for cancellation was initiated, argued that previously there was an order passed by this Court, whereby a coordinate Bench rejected a similar writ petition and as such the matter cannot be re-opened. It is further submitted on behalf of the private respondent that several rounds of litigation preceded the instant writ petition.

A copy of the order dated November 26, 2015 passed in WP No.9669(W) of 2015, on which the private respondent relies, shows that the same comprised of an observation whereby the writ petition along with other connected matters were merely directed to appear on the next date, on which date, i.e. November 27, 2015, the matter was taken up again and thereafter on November 30, 2015. The premise of the said orders was that there was serious allegation of document tampering, which was required to be gone into. However, the said investigation culminated in the order dated November 30, 2015, which shows that the petitioners therein admitted their mistake and did not want to proceed further with the writ petition. As such, the writ petition was dismissed as not pressed.

It is evident from the said orders that first, the merits of the matter were not gone into at all by the coordinate Bench. Secondly, the present writ petitioners were not parties to the said writ petition and as such the orders passed therein cannot bind the present petitioners.

From the documents annexed to the instant writ petition, it prima facie appears that no decision was taken at all by the Lieutenant Governor. By a cursory communication of the Deputy Commissioner vide Order No.756 date January 14, 2019, it is merely intimated to the petitioners that, in pursuance of "approval" of the Lieutenant Governor, the licence granted to the petitioners was cancelled.

However, the term "approval" is sufficient to show that no adjudication was made by the Lieutenant Governor at all, since the expression "approval" presupposes an existing decision which is approved. As such, a strong prima facie case has been made out by the petitioners as regards the Lieutenant Governor having failed to comply with the direction passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court dated January 10, 2019 in WP No.309 of 2018 by sub-delegating the decision to be taken by him to some other subordinate authority, which is not permissible in law.

However, at this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the administration expresses inability to apprise this Court of the entire facts of the case in view of lack of complete instructions and documents.

Accordingly, let the matter be listed next on December 12, 2019, for further hearing and passing orders. It is made clear that on the next date of hearing, the Administration shall produce all relevant documents and conclude their arguments in the matter.