Heard Shri Durgesh Vijay Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Notice on behalf of the opposite parties has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 09.09.2019 has been passed by the Competent Authority rejecting the 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.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he had preferred an appeal under clause 32A(2) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 against the show-cause notice No.1679/Urvarak/2017-18 dated 15.01.2019 passed by the District Agricultural Officer, Hathras. It has been submitted that on 30.10.2018, the District Agricultural Officer, Hathras had visited the sale point and had drawn the sample of fertilizer Mono Zinc-33%. The aforesaid sample was taken in three parts. One was sent to the quality control laboratory whereas the second sample has been preserved by the petitioner. It has further been submitted that upon the report sent by the quality control laboratory it was found that the sample did not meet the prescribed 33% as a result a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 15.01.2019 as the sample had failed.
The petitioner preferred an appeal on 23.02.2019 against the aforesaid show-cause notice wherein he had specifically made a prayer for retesting of the second sample of the fertilizer in some other notified laboratory. The second sample was sent for testing and it also gone the same result. The submission is that without considering the prayer of the petitioner regarding retesting of the third sample and without dealing with the same by means of the impugned order the appellate authority has passed a completely non-speaking order without any reason holding that the appeal is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of the Court to the orders passed by this Court in various petitions, the copy of which has been annexed as annexure nos.7 and 8 with this petition.
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.
The Apex Court in the case of Cyril Lasrado (Dead) By Lrs. and another Vs. Juliana Maria Lasrado and another reported in (2004) 7 SSC page 431 has held as under:-
"11. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable.
12. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union [(1971) 1 All ER 1148 : (1971) 2 QB 175 : (1971) 2 WLR 742 (CA)] observed: (All ER p. 1154h) "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration." In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120] it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at." Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance."
Considering the aforesaid, 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.
Accordingly, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 09.09.2019 is quashed and set aside and 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. The appellate authority shall decide the appeal after due notice and affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 ank