THONGKHOJAM BAITE Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 14.6.90 of the Government of Manipur in the Revenue Department, wherein the State Government of Manipur has cancelled the recognition of T. Lailoiphai village as a separate village and has further ordered that hill houses which formed T. Lailoiphai village but originally belong either to Molzol village or Lungngil village shall continue to pay hill house/revenue taxes, etc. through their respective chiefs to the Revenue Authority concerned.

(2.) The facts briefly are that the petitioner claims to be the chief of T. Lailoiphai village and filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur district, for allowing him to pay hill house taxes, etc. of his village separately. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Churachandpur sub-Division, then submitted a report stating therein that the prayer of payment of hill house taxes, etc. in the name of T. Lailoiphai may be considered on the ground of administrative and developmental convenience,. On the basis of the said report, the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur district, allowed the petitioner to pay hill house taxes, etc. in the name of T. Lailoiphai village separately by his order dated 13.1.86 in Hill Misc. Matter No. 3/ 86. The: respondent Nos, 4 and 5, Chiefs of Molzol village and Lungngil village, respectively, however, made a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur district, stating, inter alia, that T. Lailoiphai village did not have any separate identity and the petitioner did not have twenty families which are required for payment of hill house taxes, etc. separately and on the basis of the said complaint, the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur district, passed orders on 31.1.86 cancelling his earlier order dated 13.1.86. The said order dated 31.1.86 was thereafter revoked by the State Government of Manipur in the Revenue Department by order dated 20.2.86. But in order dated 24.4.86, the Government of Manipur in the Revenue Department, stated that until a final decision is taken on receipt of report from the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur district, the order dated 20.2.86 was stayed. The Government of Manipur in the Revenue Department then by its order dated 29.5.86 cancelled the said order dated 24.4.86 but finally by the impugned order dated 14.6.90, the Government of Manipur in the Revenue Department cancelled the recognition of T. Lailoiphai village as a separate village and ordered that hill houses which formed T. Lailcdphai village but originally belonged either to Molzol village or to Lungngil village shall continue to pay hill house/revenue taxes, etc. through their respective Chiefs to the concerned Revenue Authority.

(3.) Mr. TNK Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the aforesaid impugned order dated 14.6.90 is not a speaking order and does not contain any reasons and is, therefore, arbitrary. He cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of V.V. Saraf Vs. New Educational Institute and ors., AIR 1986 SC 2105 and the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Yanglung and another -Vs- State of Manipur and another, AIR 1993 Gau. 77, in support of his submissions that where an order does not contain reasons, it has to be quashed by the Court. He further contended that the impugned order dated 14.6.90 was violative of principles of natural justice and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before the said order was passed affecting the right of the petitioner to pay separate hill house taxes, etc. in respect of the houses located at T. Lailoiphai village. He reliedon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Yanglung and others -Vs- State of Manipur (supra) for the proposition that an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice has to be quashed by the Court. Mr. T.N.K. Singh in particular pointed out that although the impugned order dated 14.6.90 was passed on the basis of an enquiry report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur district, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Churachandpur Sub- Division and the Sub Deputy Collector, Sangaikot, a copy of the said enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL -Vs- K.Karunakaran, AIR 1994 SC 1074, for his submission that if the copy of the enquiry report on which the authority takes an adverse decision against the party is not furnished to the party, it amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. He contended that if a copy of the enquiry report had been furnished to the petitioner, the petitioner would have shown to the Government that the findings in the enquiry report were contrary to the evidence that had been collected in the course of the enquiry. Mr. TNK Singh urged that the impugned order should be quashed by this Court for the aforesaid reasons and the mutter be remanded back to the State Government of Manipur for giving due opportunity to the petitioner and for passing a fresh speaking order in accordance with law.