Show-Cause Notice And The Final Order By Public Authority Having Different Reasons Is Grave Illegality: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Facts of the case

The facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving in the Indian Army since 2005 as soldier. The petitioner while in duty was assigned extent of some land in Government land and his name was entered in the pattadar passbooks.

The Join Collector had taken up the matter, as suo motu revision and accordingly issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner requiring him to show cause as to why the patta granted to him should not be cancelled for the reasons mentioned therein.

While so, the District Collector in its revisional authority cancelled the assignment granted to petitioner and the same was challenged in the writ petition.

One of the contentions by the Petitioner was that the reason mentioned in the show cause notice was different from the reason mentioned in the final order. The respondent invented a different cause for the first time and passed the impugned order without issuing notice to the petitioner about such ground for cancellation of patta.

The Government Pleader for Revenue contended that there were many irregularities in processing the application of the petitioner by the concerned Army officials and revenue authorities.

Issue of law

The only dispute is with regard to passing of impugned final order on different ground than the ground mentioned in the show cause notice.

Consideration of the Court

It was clear from the material on record that the reasons mentioned in the show cause notice as to why patta shall not be cancelled was different from the reason mentioned in impugned order. In those circumstances, the petitioner was denuded from an opportunity to rebut the allegations made against him, if notice was actually served on the petitioner. Hence, such order cannot be sustained in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) (2014) wherein it was held that serving of show cause notice was to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him which he has to meet.

In UMC Technologies Private Limited v. Food Corporation of India (2021), the Apex Court held that the show cause notice must spell out clearly or its contents be such that it can be clearly inferred therefrom.

In Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi (1978), it was held that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned therein and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of an affidavit or otherwise.

In the present case, the cancellation of patta of petitioner was not on the ground that the petitioner was not an ex-serviceman, but on different ground that the patta was issued without the approval of Assignment Committee. Thus, the conclusion arrived at the end of the challenged Order was totally contrary to the reason mentioned in the show cause notice.

Justice Satyanarayana Murthy found that the order impugned in the writ petition was contrary to principles of natural justice and different reasons in show cause notice and impugned order is a grave illegality. The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

Case Title: Lance Naik Korrapati Kishore Kumar Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 47