BIJU GURUDASAN Vs. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 10th April, 2015 being annexure P1 has been assailed by the writ petitioner on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner in passing the said order exceeded his jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

(2.) The learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner contended that the private respondent (No.6) made a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner against the writ petitioner only to settle personal score since the writ petitioner previously had lodged complaint against respondent No.6. It was contended that the allegation against respondent No.6 was that he was running a petrol pump on the government land. The licence for running the petrol pump was issued in the name of the father of the respondent No.6 and ultimately the Deputy Commissioner cancelled the licence of the petrol pump on 2nd January, 2015. The learned advocate contended that the respondent No. 6 filed the writ petition being WP No. 073 of 2015 (PIL) which was disposed of on 02nd March, 2015. In terms of the direction of this Hon'ble Court, the Deputy Commissioner issued show cause to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner submitted his written reply before the Deputy Commissioner on 06.04.2015 and thereafter on 10.04.2015 the Deputy Commissioner passed the order arbitrarily. The learned advocate argued that from the order itself it is clear that the Deputy Commissioner passed the order primarily on the basis of report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, but the copy of the said report was not supplied to the writ petitioner. It was thereafter supplied to him by the office of the Deputy Commissioner on 15.05.2015. It was argued by the learned advocate for the writ petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner, North and Middle Andaman in terms of the impugned order held the writ petitioner liable to be disqualified from the post of Pradhan which he cannot do. The learned advocate drew my attention to Section 14 of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands (Panchayats) Regulation, 1994 which lays down that if any question arises as to whether a person has become subject to any disqualification referred to in section 4, section 7 or section 13, it shall be referred to the Deputy Commissioner for decision and his decision thereon shall be final; Provided that before giving any decision on any such question, the Deputy Commissioner shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion. It was argued that in the instant case the Deputy Commissioner without paying any heed to the proviso to the Section 14 of the Regulation has passed the order which assumes finality by the tone and tenor of the order itself.

(3.) The learned advocate appearing for the government respondents as also the learned advocate appearing for respondent No.6 contended that the writ petition is premature one. The Deputy Commissioner never exceeded his jurisdiction as would be manifestly clear from the concluding line of the order itself. Further argument of the learned advocates is that the writ petitioner took part in the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner. Referring to page 28 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 both the learned advocates argued that the writ petitioner was given every opportunity of hearing, so the question of making or passing the order in violation of principles of natural justice cannot and does not arise at all. It was also argued that whether the writ petitioner had indulged in misuse and abuse of his official power as the Pradhan of Panchayat is a question of fact which cannot be gone into by the writ court.