OM PRAKASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a licensee for selling of Milk Burfi, Mawa Rasgulla and Gulabjamun at railway platform of Luni Junction. The petitioner was operating trolly from the date he held the licence with effect from 1-4-1974. The petitioner's licence was renewed from time to time. On 4-6-1997 an order was passed that the licence of the petitioner has expired on 31-3-1996 and the petitioner has not executed an agreement for renewal of the licence and therefore he be stopped from operating his trolly No. 16 at Luni Junction. The order passed against the petitioner was challenged in the writ petition. The writ petition was registered as S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2261/97 (Om Prakash v. Union of India and others). On 21-8-1997 the order was passed by the Court. It is directed that the petitioner shall present himself on 26-8-1997, before the respondent No. 2 the Divisional Railway Manager, Jodhpur Division Northern Railway. Jodhpur or before the officer nominated by him, for execution of the agreement in respect of trolley licence for the period 1-4-1995 to 31-3-1996. After the execution of the agreement as required by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner's application for renewal of the licence dated 31-3-1996 shall be considered by the respondent No. 2 or by a officer nominated by him within a period of one month from today. With this direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(2.) The petitioner executed an agreement 26-8-1997 as per directions issued by the High Court. As the respondent could not decide the matter within one month as directed by the Court on 21-8-1997, an application was moved for extension of the period for one month. The matter was placed before the Court and on 26-9-1997 the Court has passed an order extending the period for further one month with the condition that the vendor's provisional licence shall be issued to Om Prakash, the petitioner so as to end on 20-10-1997. Although, the respondents have asked for extension of time which was granted by this Court on 26-9-1997 the petitioner's application for renewal of the licence was dismissed on 29-9-1997 by issuing the following The application has been considered by the competent authority and it has been decided not to renew the licence of the trolley beyond 31-3-1996.

(3.) The order does not contain any reason as to why the petitioner was not granted renewal of his licence which was renewed from time to time in the past. Although, the order of refusal for grant of renewal does not contain any reason but, the learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the reasons given in reply to the notice given by the petitioner. Paragraph 1 of the reply contains that the petitioner, was although given licence to sale Milk Burfi, Mawa, Rasgulla and Gulabjamun, but, he used to sale - only Rasgulla and Gulabjamun which is in breach of the agreement. That the petitioner did not execute the agreement for the period from 1-4-1995 to 31-3-1996 and moved the Court violating the Clause 39 of the agreement. The order refusing the renewal is a non-speaking order and, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, that the order passed by the Administrative Authority need not specify and reason for its action as in cases many a judicial orders in AIR 1966 SC 671, M. P. Industries v. Union of India it has been observed by Subba Rao, J. "There is essential distinction between the Court and the administrative Tribunal the Judge is trained to look at things objectively, but, an Executive Officer generally looks at the things from the stand point of policy and expediency. Habit of mind of an Executive Officer so formed, cannot be accepted to change from function to function or from act to act. So it is essential that some restrictions shall be imposed on Tribunals in the matter of passing orders affecting the right of the parties, and the least they should do is to give reasons for their orders." When the Administrative Authority passes an order which affects the livelihood of the persons, it would be essential on their part to give reasons, for the order, depriving the person from his livelihood.