Jurisdiction in writing can be exercised if the order of the quasi-judicial authority is not reasoned/non-speaking: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has ruled that quasi-judicial authorities are not excused from giving cogent reasons for the orders they have made and that the Constitutional Court, in exercising writ jurisdiction, may interfere with final orders if they suffer from a manifest error. The Applicant owns a scope of Ac. Land at 2.50 cents near the Krishna River. Due to excess flow of…

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that quasi-judicial the authorities are not excused from giving convincing reasons for the orders they have issued and the Constitutional Court, in the exercise of the jurisdiction of the writs, can interfere with the final orders if they are vitiated by manifest error.

The Applicant owns a scope of Ac. Land at 2.50 cents near the Krishna River. Due to the excessive flow of water from the Krishna River, the petitioner’s land was flooded and sand was deposited on the farmland. The petitioner filed an application with the Collector and District Magistrate of Krishna district for permission to unmold the sand from the earth. Permission has been granted.

However, the petitioner was given a show cause notice by the Ministry of Mines and Geology for a fine of Rs. 1,74,02,000/- for sending sand and encroaching on another land. The petitioner filed objections challenging the allegations contained in the show cause notice. The mining officer did not find the applicant’s explanation satisfactory and asked her to pay the amount of the fine. Injured, the applicant filed a petition for review claiming that copies of documents such as the expert’s report and inspection procedures had not been provided to her. But to the surprise of the petitioner, the reviewing authority took the impugned order confirming the order of the Mining Officer.

Counsel for petitioner MO Manoher Reddy argued that without considering any of the grounds and without hearing the petitioner for review, the review authority passed the contested order and that it is not an order to take of speech.

The Court noted that the impugned order is issued by a quasi-judicial authority. The Court held that under Section 226, the Constitutional Court is not supposed to interfere with final orders made by the statutory authority, unless the order suffers from manifest error and if it was permitted, it would amount to the perpetuation of a grave injustice.

The Court held that since the Review Authority did not give convincing reasons to justify the huge claim of Rs. to be cancelled.

Accordingly, the motion for writ was allowed and the matter was returned to the statutory authority with an order to make an appropriate order.

Pattern title: Chalasani Padma vs Andhra Pradesh State

Quote: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 9

Click here to read/download the order

Comments are closed.