HC advises Telangana, AP Chief Secretaries to guide political executive

​Hyderabad: Justice P V Sanjay Kumar of the High Court at Hyderabad on Tuesday advised Chief Secretaries of Telangana State and Andhra Pradesh to issue necessary instructions to the Executive to properly aid, assist and guide the political executive while discharging quasi-judicial functions.

The judge was dealing with a petition filed by M/s. G I Estates, a mining company from Guntur district. The petitioner challenged a memo issued by the AP government confirming the demand notice issued by the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Department by rejecting their revision petition.

The petitioner pointed out that according to the provisions of the Mines and Mineral Act, Minister for Mines has the power to review the demand notices issued by the authorities of the Mines and Geology Department in the capacity of revisionary authority.

The petitioner’s counsel pointed out that in three cases three different orders were passed. He contended that there was no rationale in applying different standards to similarly situated persons. “To put it mildly, the above stated records reveal a shocking state of affairs.

Neither in the ‘Note Files’ nor in the ‘Orders’ did the revisionary authority deem it necessary to disclose the reasons as to why the penalty was reduced or waived in that particular case,” Justice Sanjay Kumar said. The judge observed that the revisionary authority cannot assume or think that discretion vested in it under the statutory provision gave it infinite autonomy to decide the quantum of the penalty to be levied without any responsibility to disclose reasons thereof.

Observing that it was the permanent Executive which would have to advise and steer the political executive, Justice Sanjay Kumar of the Hyderabad High Court advised the Chief Secretaries of the TS and AP to issue necessary instructions to the Executive to properly aid, assist and guide the political executive while discharging quasi-judicial functions.

The judge was allowing a petition by M/s. G I Estates, a mining company in Guntur district challenging a memo issued by the AP government confirming the demand notice issued by the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Department by rejecting their revision petition.

As per the provisions of the Mines and Mineral Act, Minister for Mines has the power to review the demand notices issued by the authorities of the Mines and Geology Department in the capacity of revisionary authority. During the course of hearing P Roy Reddy, counsel for the petitioner, while bringing to the notice of the judge that in three cases where three different orders were passed by the revisionary authority, contended that there was no rationale in applying different standards to similarly situated persons.

After perusing the orders passed by revision authority “the judge said “to put it mildly, the above stated records reveal a shocking state of affairs. Neither in the ‘Note Files’ nor in the ‘Orders’, did the revisionary authority deem it necessary to disclose the reasons as to why the penalty was reduced or waived in that particular case.

The judge made it clear that when the revisionary authority was only exercising discretionary power and was not applying the letter of the law, it obviously had to indicate as to why discretion was being exercised in that particular manner.The judge ruled that delegation of functions of revisionary authority to any of his subordinate for passing a ‘speaking order’ by supplementing reasons, after disposal of the revision, is wholly illegal

The judge observed that the revisionary authority cannot assume or think that discretion vested in it under the statutory provision gave it infinite autonomy to decide the quantum of the penalty to be levied without any responsibility to disclose reasons thereof.
Maintaining that this was indeed a deplorable situation which required to be remedied immediately, the judge observed that “it is the permanent Executive which will have to advise and steer the political executive.”