Case Note & Summary
The petitioners challenged an order dated 25th May 2004 passed by the Town and Country Planning Board (respondent no.2) dismissing their appeal under Section 45(1) of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974. The appeal was disposed of by a one-line order without any reasons. The petitioners contended that the order was unsustainable as it lacked reasons. The Government Advocate fairly conceded the position. The High Court, relying on the well-settled principle that any order by a court or quasi-judicial authority must give reasons, quashed and set aside the impugned order and directed the Board to hear and dispose of the appeal afresh in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Duty to Give Reasons - Section 45(1) of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 - The Town and Country Planning Board dismissed the petitioners' appeal by a one-line order without assigning any reasons. The High Court held that any order passed by a court or quasi-judicial authority must give reasons, and the impugned order being unreasoned is liable to be set aside. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order passed by the Town and Country Planning Board dismissing the appeal without giving any reasons is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 25th May 2004 passed by respondent no.2 is quashed and set aside. Respondent no.2 is directed to hear and dispose of the appeal afresh in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of the order. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Quasi-judicial authority must give reasons for its order
- Order without reasons is unsustainable
- Principle of natural justice
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (06) 16
Writ Petition No. 385 of 2004
Mr. S. S. Kantak for petitioners, Mr. M. S. Joshi for respondents
Rabindranath Martins de Barros and others
Town and Country Planning Department, Town and Country Planning Board, State of Goa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an order of the Town and Country Planning Board dismissing an appeal without reasons.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the order dated 25th May 2004 passed by respondent no.2 and direction to hear the appeal afresh.
Filing Reason
The appeal under Section 45(1) of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 was dismissed by a one-line order without giving any reasons.
Previous Decisions
The Town and Country Planning Board passed an order on 25th May 2004 dismissing the petitioners' appeal.
Issues
Whether the order passed by the Town and Country Planning Board dismissing the appeal without giving any reasons is sustainable in law.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners submitted that the appeal was disposed of by a one-line order without giving any reasons and on that ground the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
Government Advocate fairly did not dispute this position.
Ratio Decidendi
Any order passed by a court or a quasi-judicial authority must give reasons. An order without reasons is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
Judgment Excerpts
It is by now well-settled that any order passed by a Court or a quasi-judicial authority must give reasons.
Accordingly, the impugned Order dated 25th May, 2004, passed by the respondent no.2 is quashed and set aside.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed an appeal under Section 45(1) of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 before the Town and Country Planning Board. The Board dismissed the appeal by a one-line order dated 25th May 2004 without giving reasons. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974: Section 45(1)
