Writ Jurisdiction Can Be Exercised If Order Of Quasi Judicial Authority Is Not Reasoned/ Non-Speaking: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that quasi judicial authorities are not exempted from giving cogent reasons for orders given by them and the Constitutional Court in the exercise of writ jurisidiction can interfere with the final orders if they suffers from manifest error. The Petitioner is the owner of an extent of Ac. 2.50 cents land near Krishna River. Due to excess flow of water from Krishna river the petitioner's land got inundated and sand was deposited on agricultural land. The Petitioner made an application to the Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna District seeking permission for de-casting of sand from land. The permission was granted. However, petitioner was given a show cause notice by the Department of Mines and Geology for penalty of Rs. 1,74,02,000/- for dispatching of sand and encroachment on another land. The petitioner submitted objections disputing the allegations in the show cause notice. The Mining Officer did not find the explanation of the petitioner satisfactory and demanded her to pay the penalty amount. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision petition contending that the copies of the documents such as surveyor report, and inspection proceedings were not provided to her. But to the petitioner's surprise, the revisional authority passed the impugned order confirming the order of the Mining Officer. The counsel for petitioner Mr. O. Manoher Reddy contended that without considering any of the grounds and without hearing the revision petitioner, the revisional authority passed the impugned order and it is not a speaking order. The Court noted that the impugned order is passed by a quasi judicial authority. The Court held that the constitutional court under Article 226 is not expected to interfere with final orders passed by the statutory authority, unless the order suffers from manifest error and if allowed it would amount to perpetuation of grave injustice. The Court held that since the revisional authority has not given cogent reasons to justify the huge demand of Rs. 1,74,02,000/- made by the Department, and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Hence, the Writ Petition was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the statutory authority with a direction to pass an appropriate order. Cause Title: Chalasani Padma Versus The State Of Andhra PradeshCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 9Click Here To Read/Download Order

Writ Jurisdiction Can Be Exercised If Order Of Quasi Judicial Authority Is Not Reasoned/ Non-Speaking: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Jagriti Sanghi

Tags