9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed. Factural Matrix : 3. The Controller of Rationing invited applications for allotment of Ration shop for the area Pimpri Pada, Malad (East) Mumbai. 4. Applications, 22 in number were received by respondent No.2 including that of the petitioner and respondent No.4. 5. The respondent No.2 vide its order dated 22nd November, 2003, allotted Ration shop to respondent No.4. 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner unsuccessfully filed revision application before the State Government, the respondent No.3 herein. 7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the respondent No.3 preferred Writ Petition No.5891/2004 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order was quashes and set aside and the matter was remanded to the respondent No.2 for consideration afresh. 8. The respondent No.2 after brief enquiry vide his order dated 17th December, 2004 maintained allotment of ration shop in favour of respondent No.4. 9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order again revision application was filed by the present petitioner before the respondent No.3. The hearing on merits was completed on 19th August, 2005. However ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication revealed that none of these orders were dictated by the Hon ble Minister himself, who had heard revision application filed by the petitioner. Both draft orders running counter to each other were prepared by Shri A.A.Godbole, Desk Officer, who was not present at the time of hearing. He was completely unaware of the rival contentions canvassed by the parties during the course of hearing. The Hon ble Minister has filed an affidavit dated 2nd September, 2008, the relevant part of which reads as under: ..... After hearing the parties in the Revision Petition, I did not dictate order neither it is possible for me to dictate each and every order considering the voluminous work of my ministry. The practice followed by my department after hearing the Revision Application, I asked my departmental officers to go through the merits of the case and submit a note accordingly for approval...... (Emphasis supplied) The Hon ble Minister has further stated in para-4 of the affidavit that: .....Accordingly, my department had prepare the first draft for my approval which is at Exhibit-h to this Writ Petition. However, the said draft was not brought before me for my approval. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies so as to streamline the decision making process. The said report was accepted by this Court by consent of the parties. Procedural Guidelines for Quasi-Judicial Authority : 17. This Court in exercise of powers conferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India prescribes the following procedure to be adopted by quasi-judicial authorities including the Ministers, Secretaries, officials and litigants while hearing and determining appeals, revisions, review applications and interim applications etc.: (1) Memo of appeal or revision, review and or any application shall specifically mention under which enactment and/or under what provisions of law the said appeal/ review/ revision or application is filed. (2) The appellant/ applicant shall give a synopsis of concise dates and events along with the memo of appeal or revision. (3) The appeal, revision and/or application shall be filed within a period stipulated under the law governing the subject from the receipt of the order/ decision which is impugned in the above matter. In the event of delay, it should only be entertained along with application for condonation of delay. (4) At the time of presenta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r opportunity should be given to such party for hearing. (13) The authority hearing quasi-judicial matters shall duly fix a date, time and venue for such hearing. Such authority shall refrain from interacting with third party during the course of hearing either in person or on phone and shall not do any act which would tend to affect or prejudice fair hearing. (14) A speaking order shall be passed by the authority hearing the matter as early as possible after the hearing is concluded and, as far as possible, within a period of four to eight weeks from the conclusion of the hearing, on the basis of the record before it as well as the submissions made at the hearing. The order must contain reasons in support of the order. (15) The authority shall not receive information or documents after the hearing is concluded and/or shall not pass the speaking order on the basis of such documents and/or information unless such material is brought to the notice of the parties to the proceedings following rules of natural justice. (16) The order passed by the quasi-judicial authority on the hearing shall be forthwith communicated to all the parties by Registered A.D. (17) No applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
