Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 4102/2000
Date of Decision: 01.09.2009 IN THE MATTER OF :
M/S HARYANA WIRE PRODUCTS AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Suryakant Singhla, Advocate
Through: Mr. Vikram Nandrajog, Advocate with Ms. Himani Jadoun, Advocate
JUDGMENT
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
1. A perusal of the file shows that the amended memo of parties is not on the record. Counsel for the petitioners hands over the same in Court. Amended memo of parties is taken on the record. 2009:DHC:3594
2. Counsels for the parties state that a typographical error has crept in para 2 of the order dated 06.08.2009. They state that while the premises of the petitioners was inspected on 09.10.1997, in para 2 of the aforesaid order, the date has been erroneously typed out as 09.12.1997 and necessary corrections are necessary in that regard. The date 09.12.1997 as mentioned in the fifth line of para 2 of the order dated 06.08.2009 shall read as 09.10.1997.
3. So as to pick up the threads of this case, from the last effective date of hearing, it is necessary to refer to the order dated 06.08.2009, which is reproduced hereinbelow:
4. By the aforesaid order, counsel for the respondents was directed to seek a clarification from his clients by producing the original records pertaining to the notice to show cause dated 05.12.1997 and the speaking order dated 21.05.1999. The said clarification was considered necessary in view of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners that no fault could be found with the speaking order dated 21.05.1999 passed by Shri V.P. Garg in the capacity of Superintending Engineer (O&M) merely on the ground that on the date of passing of the speaking order, the officer in question had been transferred from the post of Superintending Engineer (D) North to the post of Superintending Engineer (O&M) and that in any case, the Inspector General (Enforcement) had no authority to issue the communication dated 13.06.2000 (Annexure P-21).
5. Counsel for the respondents states today that despite the best efforts made by his clients, the relevant part of the original records are not available. He states that the records do not contain the noting part as to the hearings granted to the petitioners. Thus, no light can be thrown by him on the said aspect. The submissions of the counsel for the petitioners have therefore to be examined on the basis of the documents available on the record.
6. A perusal of the representation dated 26.02.1999(Annexure P-9) addressed by the petitioners to the Chairman of the erstwhile Delhi Vudyut Board (DVB), predecessor-in-interest of the present respondent, NDPL shows that the petitioners had requested the Chairman to intervene in the matter on the ground that no speaking order was being issued by the Superintending Engineer (D) North, whereas the file was moving between the said officer and the Enforcement Department for a period of one year. On the first page of the said representation, was endorsed a handwritten note dated 26.02.1999 to the following effect: “Concerned SE should pass the speaking orders within 15 days after hearing the parties. (Signature) SE(D) North – By Name (Sh. V.P. Garg)”
7. Counsel for the petitioners submits that as the aforesaid direction was issued by the Chairman of the erstwhile DVB to the concerned officer by name, the respondent cannot be permitted to question the speaking order dated 21.05.1999 passed by the aforesaid officer merely on the ground that on the date of passing of the said order, the aforesaid officer was designated as Superintending Engineer (O&M) and had no authority to pass the order. There is substance in the aforesaid submission of the counsel for the petitioners. The note of the competent authority of the respondents makes it abundantly clear that directions were issued to Mr. V.P. Garg, Superintending Engineer (D) North by name to pass the speaking order within 15 days from the date of hearing of the petitioners. The aforesaid direction was issued on 26.02.1999 and the order came to be passed on 21.05.1999. In these circumstances, the impugned letter dated 13.06.2000 issued by the Inspector General (Enforcement)DVB to the effect that he had been directed by the competent authority to treat the speaking order passed by the Superintending Engineer (D) as having been withdrawn, is unjustified. In any case, the respondents have not been able to show or place on the record the order of the competent authority mentioned in the aforesaid communication, withdrawing the speaking order in question, so as to examine the reasons thereof.
8. A reference has been made by the counsel for the respondent, to the letter dated 13.06.2000 issued by the Inspector General (Enforcement), DVB to state that in any case, the aforesaid officer had been directed by the competent authority on the administrative side, to issue a letter to the petitioner calling upon it to appear before him for a fresh decision in the case. It is therefore stated that nothing much will turn on the absence of the relevant records and that in any case, a fresh hearing was being granted to the petitioner by the concerned officer. Even if it is assumed that the order had been passed by the competent authority on the administrative side, it was incumbent for the respondent to have issued a notice to show cause to the petitioners, before recalling the speaking order dated 21.05.1999. This is more so, when the speaking order which had been passed in favour of the petitioners, was duly communicated to them, and by virtue of an administrative order, the competent authority had decided to withdraw the said order and directed that the case be reopened. It is not denied that the petitioners were never put to notice before recalling the speaking order dated 21.5.1999 and that no notice to show cause was issued to the petitioners prior to issuance of the letter dated 13.06.2000.
9. In these circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in quashing the letter dated 13.06.2000 as being illegal and arbitrary. The writ petition is allowed. As the communication dated 13.06.2000 is quashed, the speaking order dated 21.05.1999 shall remain in operation.
10. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs. HIMA KOHLI,J SEPTEMBER 01, 2009 rkb