2019 (12) TMI 1556 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of appeal - rejection of appeal of the petitioner even without considering the request as well as the prayer made by the petitioner in his appeal for retesting of the third sample of fertilizer Mono Zinc-33% in some notified laboratory - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The learned State Counsel could not dispute the fact that it was incumbent upon the appellate authority to have considered the submissions as well as the request of the petitioner before passing the order. The learned Standing Counsel also could not dispute the fact that the appellate order does not contain any reason and is completely bereft of any reasons. This Court is of the view that there will be no gainful purpose in keeping the above petition pending; inasmuch as the order impugned which is bereft of any reason cannot be sustained - the matter is remitted to the appellate authority for deciding the appeal afresh in light of the law as well as after considering the prayer of the petitioner in respect of the retesting of the third sample is concerned - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of retesting request for fertilizer sample under Fertilizer Control Order, 1985; Lack of reasons in appellate authority's order; Quashing and remitting the matter for fresh decision.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed an appeal against the rejection of the retesting request for a fertilizer sample under clause 32A(2) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. The District Agricultural Officer drew a sample of fertilizer Mono Zinc-33%, which failed to meet the prescribed 33% as per the quality control laboratory report. The petitioner requested retesting of the second sample in a different laboratory, but the result was the same. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal without considering the petitioner's prayer for retesting the third sample, leading to a non-speaking order devoid of reasons. The court emphasized the necessity of reasons in orders for clarity and justice, citing the importance of reasons in administrative and judicial decisions. The absence of reasons rendered the appellate order unsustainable, prompting the court to quash the impugned order dated 09.09.2019.

The court referred to the case of Cyril Lasrado (Dead) By Lrs. and another Vs. Juliana Maria Lasrado, highlighting the significance of reasons in orders to ensure transparency and accountability in decision-making processes. The court noted that the appellate authority failed to provide any reasons for its decision, which is essential for a sound judicial system. As a result, the court decided to remit the matter to the appellate authority for a fresh decision, emphasizing the importance of considering the petitioner's request for retesting the third sample. The court directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the parties involved, ensuring a fair and reasoned decision-making process. Ultimately, the court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and remitted the matter for a fresh decision in accordance with the law and considering the petitioner's prayer for retesting the third sample.