Rural Area Development Trust and B. Dharmathupatty vs The State Commissioner for differently abled persons, The District Collector and The District differently abled Rehabilitation Officer

S. Nagamuthu , J.—By consent of both the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and the learned Additional Advocate General

appearing for the Respondents, the main writ appeal itself is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.07.2010, dismissing the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.

4786 of 2010.

The Appellant is a Trust, known as Rural Area Development Trust at Mela Chokkanathapuram, Bodi Taluk, Theni District. On an appropriate

application made by the said Trust, the competent authority appointed u/s 50 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of

Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ""the Act"") issued a Certificate of Registration to the Trust to establish and

maintain two institutions viz., ""Early Intervention Centre"" at Theni and ""Spastic Children Day Care Centre"" at Uthamapalayam. The Appellant/Trust

was also extended with Grant by the Government for running the said institutions. While so, according to the Respondents, the Appellant had

committed certain financial irregularities in the matter of running the institutions. Based on the above allegations, ultimately, the first Respondent by

his proceedings in Se. Mu. Order. No. 10626/Ou Ma.2-1/2009 dated 31.03.2010 cancelled the registration granted to the Appellant. In the same

order, the first Respondent has directed the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,65,000/-, which has been spent by the Appellant against the norms of

the Government. It was also directed by the same order that the institutions should be handed over to another Trust known as ""Theni District

Handicapped Welfare Trust"" from 01.04.2010.

Challenging the said order, the Appellant herein preferred a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No. 4786 of 2010 before this Court. It was contended,

inter-alia, in the said writ petition that before passing the impugned order, no opportunity whatsoever was given to the Appellant herein. But, it was

contended by the Respondents before the Writ Court that no such opportunity need be given since a letter admitting the irregularity was issued by

the Appellant to the Respondents. It was also contended that non-furnishing of such an opportunity has not caused any prejudice to the Appellant.

Considering the rival submissions, the learned Single Judge, by order dated 23.07.2010 dismissed the writ petition by concluding that non-

furnishing of opportunity has not caused any prejudice to the Appellant herein and a direction to the Respondents to afford such an opportunity

would be only an empty formality. Aggrieved over the said order, the Appellant has come up with this Writ Appeal.

We have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and also the learned Additional Advocate General appearing

for the Respondents.

In this case, it is not in dispute that a Certificate as required u/s 52 of the Act was issued to the Appellant by the first Respondent by his

proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 3493/C.Pa.111/2006 dated 04.09.2006. The Certificate Number is 113/2006. It is also not in dispute that the period

of the said Certificate has not expired so far. A perusal of Section 53 of the Act would go to show that such a Certificate could be cancelled by the

first Respondent for the grounds enumerated in Section 53 of the Act itself. But, before passing any such order revoking the Certificate, as per

Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 53 of the Act, an opportunity should be given to the holder of the Certificate to show cause as to why the

Certificate should not be revoked. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, in this case, the said statutory obligation was not

properly discharged by the first Respondent in as much as neither any show cause notice nor any opportunity was given to the Appellant to submit

his explanation regarding the allegations. In respect of the second part of the order directing the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,65,000/-, we are

of the considered opinion that the first Respondent ought to have afforded an opportunity to the Appellant to submit his explanation. Though there

is no statutory obligation to afford any such opportunity, the said opportunity is inherent and it is in accordance with the principles of natural justice,

which is a facet of the fundamental rights. Since civil consequences to the tune of Rs. 2,65,000/- is involved, naturally, the first Respondent ought

to have afforded an opportunity calling upon the Appellant to submit his explanation in this regard also. For these two reasons, we are of the view

that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.

Our attention is also drawn to Section 54 of the Act, which provides for an Appeal as against an order made revoking the Certificate. Simply

because such an alternative remedy is available, we are not inclined to refuse to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. It is well settled law that the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is so wide and the same is not restricted by

any of the provisions of the Constitution of India. But, there are certain restrictions, which have been evolved by the Courts in the course of time

and such restrictions are only self-imposed. If it is a case where there is violation of principles of natural justice, it is well settled, that the said

restriction should not come in the way of the Court to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to render justice to the

parties aggrieved. Therefore, though in the given case there is alternative remedy available, on the said ground, we are not prepared to decline to

exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In respect of Grant to be given by the Government to the Appellant institutions, we are of the view that it is absolutely for the Government to

decide. It is not within the purview of this Court to express any opinion as to whether the Appellant is entitled for such Grant from the Respondents

or not. To repeat, we would state that it is absolutely for the Government to decide whether to extend the Grant for the running of the institutions of

the Appellant or not. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge would go to show that attention of the Court was not brought to the notice

of Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 53 of the Act. Therefore, we are unable to subscribe the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

In the result, this writ appeal is allowed, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and consequently, the impugned order stands set aside

in terms of the observations, which we have made above. It is needless to say that it is open for the first Respondent to issue appropriate show

cause notice to the Appellant and then to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, if so advised. However, there will be no order as to

costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2010 is closed.