SYED VALIYULLAH SHAH KHADIRI, PEERZADA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Syed Valiyullah Shah Khadiri, Peerzada And Others
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The petitioner was Muthavalli and Sajjadinishin of Hassan Raja Durga and Mosque Arcot, North Arcot District. The Special Officer who noted certain irregularities in the administration of the Mosque by the petitioner charge sheeted the Muthavalli and called upon him to explain. Alagiriswami, J. in C. M. P. No. 8759 of 1969 has noted as to how the petitioner evaded appearance before the Special Officer and it was in those circumstances the learned Judge was not inclined to grant a stay of the operation of the order of the Special Officer. Aggrieved against the order of the Special Officer dated 10-7-1968, whereby the petitioner was removed from the Mutavalliship of the Durga, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent under Section 43 (4-A) of the Wakf Act, 1954. He also secured a stay of the operation of the order in the first instance. The petitioner stated that the only communication he received from the first respondent was on 14-4-1969 which stated that the above appeal was rejected. In fact, the order reads as follows :
"The Government has carefully examined the petition from Thiru Syed Valiullah Shah Khadiri Peerzada against the orders of the Special Officer for Wakfs, removing him from the Muthavalliship. The petition is rejected. The stay granted in the Government Memorandum second cited is hereby vacated." On the ground that the impugned order is a non-speaking one, the petitioner has come up to this court seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash the same. His other ground is that the principles of natural justice have been violated, in that, he was not given an opportunity to make his representations when the appeal was considered by the first respondent.
(2.) While exercising, jurisdiction under sub-section (4) of Section 43 of the Wakf Act, the first respondent acts quasi judicially. It has two parties before it, namely, the aggrieved appellant and the statutory body which imposed the penalty. There is a dispute which is the subject matter of the appeal and alternatively the first respondent has to decide on such a dispute between the two parties before it who have come up by virtue of the statutory entitlement of one or the other of the aggrieved parties to approach the first respondent for relief. In those circumstances it is well established that a quasi judicial tribunal disposing of a matter which is more or less a lis, which disposition affects rights of parties, it should not only deal with the matter fairly but while rendering a decision it should give reasons for arriving at the conclusion. A non-speaking order passed by a quasi judicial Tribunal would be an empty one as the higher hierarchy of courts or tribunals which are given the opportunity to scrutinise the said non-speaking order would be at a disadvantage to consider whether the impugned order is proper, legal or regular. If such a court or Tribunal exercising supervisory or visitorial jurisdiction is not given the real opportunity to test the propriety or legality of an order impugned before it, then such an order is practically a void one and the product of an empty formality. It is in this context that Alagiriswami, J., in W. P. 2093 of 1969 (Mad) while adopting the reasoning of the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered on this aspect observed -
"When judicial power is exercised by an authority normally performing executive or administrative functions, the court would require to be satisfied that the decision has been reached after due consideration of the merits of the dispute, uninfluenced by extraneous considerations of policy or expediency." Referring to the observations of the Supreme Court, the learned Judge said that "the court insists upon disclosure of reasons in support of the order on two grounds - one, that the party aggrieved in a proceeding before the High Court or the Supreme Court has the opportunity to demonstrate that the reasons which persuaded the authority to reject his case were erroneous; the other that the obligation to record reasons operates as a deterrent against possible arbitrary action by the executive authority invested with judicial power."
(3.) In the instant case, it is not disputed that the impugned order is a non-speaking one. No reasons are given to support the rejection. In such circumstances and in view of my observations as above, this writ petition has to be allowed. The rule nisi is made absolute and the writ petition is allowed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.