Vinay Pal Singh And Others vs Lieutenant Governor And Others

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J

The two writ petitions are taken up together for hearing, since both arise from similar circumstances.

The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows:-

A coordinate Bench of this Court, sitting in Port Blair Circuit, on January 10, 2019 had passed orders in W.P. No. 308 and 309 of 2018 respectively, 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 said two writ petitions correspond to the respective petitioners of the instant two writ petitions.

The Lieutenant Governor did not take any decision on the issue despite such direction.

The petitioners applied for relevant documents under the Right to Information Act but were furnished with only some of the relevant documents, which reveal that there was no adjudication by the Lieutenant Governor at all. Some office records, showing the minutes recorded at the behest of the Assistant Secretary (Revenue), annexed at pages 140-144 of both the writ petitions, were only found.

By a cursory order, bearing order No.756 dated June 14, 2019, the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District merely recorded that the licences given in favour of the petitioner and others were cancelled. It was purportedly in pursuance of an "approval" of the Lieutenant Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

Being thus aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court, alleging non compliance of the previous orders of the coordinate Bench, since the minutes relevant in the case were recorded at the behest of the Assistant Secretary (Revenue) and the order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner. There was, according to the petitioners, no adjudication by the Lieutenant Governor at all, at any point of time.

It is further argued that the original licence which was granted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners contained a clause indicating that, if the licencee fails to observe any condition specifically mentioned in the licence or any provision of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulations, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1966 Regulations") 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. No such ingredient has been made out in the present case, as per learned counsel for the petitioner.

Regulation 146(ii) of the 1966 Regulations provides for grant of licence in writing to any person to occupy such land to such extent and for such purposes as may be prescribed, but does not provide for any revocation or cancellation of such licence.

Although Regulation 147 provides for cancellation of a licence, but the same is restricted to a case where a 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 such further time as the Deputy Commissioner may allow.

It is argued that said provision is also not attracted in the present case.

Regulation 148 of the 1966 Regulations, it is argued, 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 to a share in the disputed property by way of inheritance.

Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent, who was a complainant in the proceeding for cancellation of licence of the petitioners, argues that a coordinate Bench had previously rejected a similar writ petition, which cannot be revisited. It is also submitted that the instant writ petitions were preceded by several rounds of litigation.

The private respondent relies on an order dated November 26, 2015 passed in WP No. 9669 (W) of 2015, which contained an observation that the writ petition, alongwith other connected matters, were directed to appear on November 27, 2015, on which date the matter was taken up again and thereafter on November 30, 2015. It was recorded in the order dated November 30, 2015 that the petitioners admitted their mistake and did not want to proceed further with the writ petition and the same was dismissed as not pressed.

Perusal of the said order shows that the merits of the matter were not entered into by the coordinate Bench. Moreover, the present writ petitioners were not parties to the said writ petition and any order passed therein cannot bind the present petitioners.

The documents annexed to the present writ petitions shows ex-facie that the Lieutenant Governor did not take any decision at all, pursuant to the previous direction passed by the coordinate Bench on January 10, 2019 in WP Nos. 308 and 309 of 2018. An unreasoned communication of the Deputy Commissioner vide order No. 756 dated June 14, 2019 merely intimated the petitioners that, pursuant to an "approval" of the Lieutenant Governor, the licence granted to the petitioner was cancelled.

The very expression "approval" presupposes an existing decision, which is approved. Hence, it is obvious that the Lieutenant Governor himself did not take any decision at all but apparently approved of a decision taken by some other subordinate authority.

Hence, the Lieutenant Governor failed to comply with the direction passed by the coordinate Bench dated January 10, 2019 in WP Nos. 308 - 309 of 2018, by sub- delegating the authority to pass the decision to a subordinate authority, contrary to law.

When the matters were taken up last on December 10, 2019, learned counsel appearing for the Administration sought for an adjournment to return with appropriate instructions and documents.

When the matters are taken up for hearing today, learned counsel for the Administration produces relevant documents, which corroborate the opinions expressed above and vindicate the cause of the petitioner.

It is thus evident that the impugned order, being Order No. 756 dated June 14, 2019, was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District, who is subordinate in authority to the Lieutenant Governor, and as such the said order was passed de hors the law and in direct violation of the order of the coordinate Bench as referred to above.

In such view of the matter, the said impugned order does not stand a moment's scrutiny and ought to be set aside. Accordingly WP No. 197 of 2019 and WP No. 198 of 2019 are allowed, thereby setting aside the order impugned in both the writ petitions, bearing Order No. 756 dated June 14, 2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District and revoking the cancellation of the licence granted to the petitioners respectively in respect of the disputed properties. Such licences are hereby restored to the petitioners.

The Lieutenant Governor is directed to act in pursuance of the previous orders dated January 10, 2019 passed by a co-ordinate Bench in W.P.Nos.308 and 309 of 2018, by taking a decision on perusal of the documents produced by the parties, in respect of the veracity of the cancellation of the petitioners' licence, by himself within two months from this date, upon giving opportunity of hearing to both sides.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.