NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & OTHERS versus MADHUKAR KUMAR & OTHERS

Citation: [2021] 13 S.C.R. 299 · Decided: 23-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2021] 13 S.C.R. 299
299
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & OTHERS
v.
MADHUKAR KUMAR & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No(s). 11141 of 2018)
SEPTEMBER 23, 2021
[K.M. JOSEPH AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
National Highways Fee (Determination or Rates and
Collection) Rules, 2008 – rr. 3, 8, 9, 17 – Construction of Toll Plaza
– Appellant-NHAI proposed for the construction of Toll Plaza at
the four laning of Patna-Bakhityarpur sectionofNH-30 – According
to the respondent, the appellant-NHAI had not assigned any reason
for establishing the toll plaza within a municipal area and
construction of the same was in violation of Rule 8 – Respondents
filed writ petition before the High Court – The Single Judge of the
High Court allowed the writ petitions and directed to shift the
proposed construction of Toll Plaza from its present location – The
Single Judge of the High Court also found that before taking
decision to construct a toll plaza within 10 km of the municipal
limits, the Executive Authority must assign reasons in writing and
also adhere to the conditions mentioned in the second proviso to
Rule 8 – The Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the order
of the Single Judge of the High Court – On appeal, held: There is
no general duty, when an administrative decision is taken, to give
reasons – A Statute may, however, explicitly provide that the
Executive Authority must provide reasons and it must be recorded
in writing – Rule 8(1) provides that the Executing Authority or the
Concessionaire shall establish toll plaza beyond the distance of 10
km from a municipal or local town area limits – However, the first
proviso engrafts a limitation on the power of the Executing Authority
that the exercise of power under the first proviso, should not result
in the toll plaza being located within 5 km of such municipal or
local town area limits – In exercise of the said discretionary power,
the Executive Authority must record reasons in writing – On the
other hand, on the perusal of the second proviso, it leaves no doubt
that the factum of construction of a section of the national highway,
inter-alia, within the municipal or town area limits, is subject to the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
300
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 13 S.C.R.
only condition that it must be primarily for the use of the residents
of such municipal or town area – The second proviso does not
indicate as to, in whom, the power to locate the toll plaza under the
second proviso, stands vested with – Also, the second proviso does
not contemplate that reasons for exercising the discretionary power,
is to be recorded in writing – Thus, the High Court erred in
concluding that the recording of reasons in writing was necessary
– The direction of the High Court, to shift toll plaza, cannot be
upheld and it is liable to be set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. This Court would hold that as noticed by the
Bench of three Judges in M/s. Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd.,
Gorakhpore, there is no general duty, when an administrative
decision is taken, to give reasons. A Statute may, however,
explicitly provide that the Executive Authority must provide
reasons and it must be recorded in writing. A case in point is the
first proviso to Rule 8 of the Rules itself. The desirability of a
general duty, in the case of administrative action to support
decisions with reason, is open to question. One of the most
important reason is, the burden it would put on the administration.
It is apposite, at this juncture, to notice that administrative
decisions are made in a wide spectrum of situations and contexts.
The executive power of the Union and States are provided in
Articles 73 and 162 of the Constitution of India, respectively.
Undoubtedly, in India, every state action must be fair, failing which,
it will fall foul of the mandate of Article 14. It is, at this juncture,
this Court may also notice that the duty to give reasons, would
arise even in the case of administrative action, where legal rights
are at stake and the administrative action adversely affects legal
rights. There may be something in the nature or the context,
under which, the administrative action is taken, which may
necessitate the authority being forthcoming with rational reasons.
There are other decisions, which essentially belong more to the
realm of executive policy-making, which ordinarily may not require
the furnishing of reasons. The advantages, undoubtedly, of
introducing a reasons driven regime, are as follows. [Para 60]
[343-C-G]
A
B
C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.