Facts and Background:
From 02.03.2017, the Petitioner has been assigned parking space for a monthly license fee of Rs. 12,76,999/-. Due to Tehbazari and SDMC's construction of benches in the parking area, approximately 50-60% of the parking site was unavailable. As a result, he demanded that the parking fee be reduced.
Following an inspection, the competent authority agreed to reduce the monthly license fee from Rs. 12,76,999 to Rs. 9,14,440 per month, effective immediately. The excess security deposit, valued at Rs. 12,76,999/-, was guided to be applied to license fee arrears. According to the petitioner's representation, the petitioner's complaint is about the non-adjustment of the supposed excess sum charged for the date between when the parking site was assigned to the petitioner and the time the competent authority made its decision.
The Petitioner made a representation for adjustment, but it was turned down.
According to the petitioner's counsel, all of the representations made by the respondent's counsel justifying the order are not included in the order. The lawyer also stated that the order does not state why the Petitioner's representation was rejected.
The respondent's counsel claims that the competent authority's decision was prospective rather than retrospective, as shown by the letter dated 12.12.2017. He also claims that the complainant had paid the monthly license fee before the court made its decision. No change is available to the petitioner. He went on to say that after the sum was reduced, the petitioner failed to make the payment. He also claims that the first representation was sent on August 24, 2020, requesting an adjustment of the sum he had paid for the previous period.
The court stated that it is a well-established legal principle that an administrative order must speak for itself. Whether in the form of an affidavit or otherwise, new reasons cannot be added to the order. The reasons must be spelled out in the order.
A review of the impugned order reveals that none of the representations made by the learned counsel for the respondent in support of the impugned order are listed.
The said order makes no mention of dealing with the petitioner's arguments presented in his representation.
The petition was granted by the Honourable High Court. After granting the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, the court remanded the case to the respondent to determine the petitioner's representation anew.
The respondent was also ordered by the Court to dismiss the petitioner's representation without regard to anything specified in this order. The court also reserved the parties' rights and contentions.