TMI Blog1969 (2) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a preliminary probe, submitted a report which revealed several, serious irregularities in the functioning of the society. Alerted thus, the Joint Registrar, who has statutory responsibilities of supervisory action, proceeded to supersede the Board under Section 42 of the Travancore-Cochin Co-operative Societies Act. In response to his notice (Ext. P1) to the affected party, the Board, an explanation was submitted refusing the charges seriatim (Ext. P2) which, however, did not satisfy the authority and he therefore, passed the order Ext. P3. This order is impugned in the writ petition. It bodily reproduces the irregularities set out in Ext. P1, the 'show cause' notice, and runs on: The explanation filed by the President on behalf of the committee to the notice that as first paper above is found to be not at all satisfactory. The explanation on the various points are either false or unreasonable. From the above facts it is clear that the committee of the Society has been, and is, mismanaging the affairs of the Society. Further, I am convinced that the present committee is not functioning properly and that any attempt to set right matters with the present committee in of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is request was allowed but the appellant's prayer for adjournment was rejected. Eventually, the appeal was dismissed by order dated 16-12-1968 (Ext. P7) which I may usefully read here: This is an appeal petition filed by Shri A. Ebrahim Kunju, President of the Palode Service Co-operative Society Ltd., No. 792 against the orders of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Credit) No. CR3-55042/67 dated 1-11-1968 superseding the Managing Committee of the Palode Service Co-operative Society Ltd., No. 792 for a period of 6 months and appointing a Rectification Officer for the said period. Shri K. Krishnan, a Member of the Society, has filed a petition opposing the appeal petition. This case was taken up for bearing. Neither the appeal petitioner nor his advocate was present. The Advocate for the petitioner has sent a petition requesting for an adjournment. The request is declined. Shri K. Krishnan a member of the Society opposed the appeal petition. His counsel appeared and argued the case on his behalf. His arguments were heard and the records were perused. It is seen that the committee of the Society was ordered to be superseded by the Joint Registrar of Co-o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1200, set out in para 6 thereof viz., An important question of administrative law is whether some principles of procedure are not so universal as to apply to all wielding of power, whether judicial or administrative. (And the answer that the Courts have 1 given over the years is that even when an executive body is given the power to decide something, in its discretion, the courts would still keep it in the leading strings of fair procedure are not an over-statement of the law, in the light of the rulings of the House of Lords, the Supreme Court of India and the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court referred to above. The principles of natural justice are neither new nor limited in their applicability and indeed even God, -- and certainly therefore civilised man made after his image -- is bound by it. Forte-scue J. in R. v. Chancellor of Cambridge, 1723-1 Strange 557 (I quote from Marshall on Natural Justice, pp. 17, 18) observes: The laws of God and man both give the party an opportunity to make his defence, if he has any. I remember to have heard it observed by a very learned man upon such an occasion, that even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam, before he was call ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rials or the explanation furnished by the Board nor have reasons been given in these two orders as to why the alleged irregularities are held to have been proved. Ext. P7 merely states that the Joint Registrar has ordered the committee of the Society to be superseded for very grave irregularities and that Government do not therefore consider it necessary to interfere with the orders passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies appealed against. This is an abdication of the appellate power rather than an exercise of it and from the point of view of the appellant it is doing injustice to natural justice. Quasi-judicial obligation involves giving of reasons for orders, since justice is not expected to wear the inscrutable face of a sphinx. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Joseph v. Superintendent of Post Offices (1960 Ker LT 1304 : AIR 1961 Ker 197) spoke emphatically and at length on this point, as follows: That apart, there are judicial pronouncements, which insist on administrative orders assigning reasons for the conclusions, and such pronouncements have received legislative recognition. Thus, in the United States Section 8(b) of the American Administ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Tribunal. All that was necessary was that the Court of Quarter Sessions, in making its order should not make it unspeaking or unintelligible order, but should, in some way state upon the face of the order, the elements which had led to the decision of the Court of Quarter Sessions. If the Court of Quarter Sessions stated upon the face of the order by way of recital, that the facts were so and so, and the grounds of its decision were such as were so stated, then the order became upon the face of it, a speaking order; and if that which was stated upon the face of the order, in the opinion of any party, was not such as to warrant the order, then, that part might go to the Court of Queen's Bench and point to the order as one which told its own story, and ask the Court of Queen's Bench to remove it by certiorari, and when so removed to pass judgment upon it. whether it should or should not be quashed.' 'Speaking order' in the aforesaid observation, has been explained by Lord Goddard, C. J. in Rex v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal; Ex parte Shaw (1951) 1 KB 711 at p. 718, in these words: 'When Lord Cairns, L. C., speaks of an unspeaking or uni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a view to consider an approach to a revisional Court. Being kept in ignorance of the reasons clearly prejudices his right to move the revisional Court ..... A later ruling of the Supreme Court in Bhagat Raja v. Union of India AIR 1967 SC 1606 contains observations very pertinent to our point: Let us now examine the question as to whether it was incumbent on the Central Government to give any reasons for its decision on review. It was argued that the very exercise of judicial or quasi judicial powers in the case of a tribunal entailed upon it an obligation to give reasons for arriving at a decision for or against a party. The decisions of tribunals in India are subject to the supervisory powers of the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution and of appellate powers of this Court under Article 136. It goes without saying that both the High Courts and this Court are placed under a great disadvantage if no reasons are given and the revision is dismissed curtly by the use of the single word rejected , or, dismissed''. In such a case, this Court can probably only exercise its appellate jurisdiction satisfactorily by examining the entire records of the case a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t which is turned down, the dismissal of the appeal visits a punishment on the party which may be neither fair nor just. It may, perhaps be proper in the interests of justice to give the client some time, however, short, to engage a counsel. While this wholesome procedure might well have been adopted by the Government in this case. I am not prepared to strike down the order Ext. P7 for that reason alone. 10. A few other points also have been mentioned before me, but counsel for the writ petitioner ultimately said that he did not press his objection on the grounds of natural justice to the validity of Ext. P3. None of the alleged infirmities in Ext. P3, he assures me, he proposes to urge in appeal before the Government if Ext. P7 were to be quashed and a re-hearing of the appeal were to be allowed. He undertakes that he will confine himself to the merits of the charges of irregularities and not to put forward any other contentions before the appellate authority. Nor has he any objection to respondent Krishnan being impleaded or heard in appeal but not behind his back. Of course, if Government proposes to use the report of the Deputy Registrar or any other material not already men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
