HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 74274 of 2010 Petitioner :- Chhotey Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Rajesh Yadav Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Despite time having been granted to the respondents, they have not filed counter affidavit. However, a short submission has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, which is purely legal. Learned Standing Counsel states that he does not propose to file counter affidavit and the writ petition may be heard and decided at this stage on the basis of material available on record under the Rules of the Court.
2. The petitioner's fair price agreement has been cancelled by order dated 20.02.2007 by the Deputy Collector Sadar, Maharajganj where against his appeal has been rejected by means of the order dated 24.09.2010. The Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order has recorded his so called findings as under:
^^i{kks dks lquus rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{;ksa ds voyksdu ls ;g fofnr gksrk gS fd vihykaV ds fo:) fn, x, f'kdk;rh i= dh tkap {ks=h; iwfrZfujh{kd ls djk;h x;h vkSj tkap esa ik;h x;h vfu;ferrk ds ckn vihykaV ds nqdku dk vuqca/k i= fuyfEcr djrs gq, vihykaV ls Li"Vhdj.k ekaxk x;k ijUrq Ik;kZIr le; O;rhr gks tkus ds ckn vihykaV }kjk dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k] vr% voj U;k;ky; us iz'uxr vkns'k }kjk vihykaV ds nqdku dk vuqca/k i= fujLr dj fn;kA vihykaV }kjk viuk Li"Vhdj.k rFkk fpfdRlk izek.k i= voj U;k;ky; esa izLrqr gh ugha fd;k Fkk vr% voj U;k;ky; }kjk ml ij fopkj djus dk iz'u gh ugha FkkA vihykaV }kjk voj U;k;ky; es aizLrqr rFkkdfFkr Li"Vhdj.k dh tks izfr bl U;k;ky; esa izLrqr dh x;h gS] mlds voyksdu ls Hkh ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd vihykaV us okafNr vfHkys[k izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA mDr ds vfrfjDr vihykUV ij yxk, x, vkjksi cgqr gh xEHkhj izd`fr ds gSa vkSj vc mls fdlh izdkj dk vuqrks"k fn;k tkuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA vihy cyghu gS vkSj fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA rn~uqlkj vihy fujLr dh tkrh gSA vkns'k dh izfr ds lkFk voj U;k;ky; dh i=koyh okil Hksth tkrh gSA vkns'k dh izfr ds lkFk voj U;k;ky; dh i=koyh okil Hksth tk; rFkk ckn vko';d dk;Zokgh i=koyh nkf[ky nQ~rj gksA**
3. It is contended that impugned order is wholly unreasoned and non speaking and has not considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.
4. From perusal of the aforesaid, it is evident that Deputy Commissioner has recorded certain narration of facts and transaction, which took place and thereafter simply recorded conclusion that petitioner did not produce relevant document, charges levelled against him serious therefore no relief can be granted being not justified. He has not considered the submissions, if any, advanced by the petitioner, as mentioned in his earlier part of the order and in a slip shod manner, has passed the impugned order.
5. It is well known that "conclusions" and "reasons" are two different things and reasons must show mental exercise of authorities in arriving at a particular conclusion.
6. In Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Kapoor (1973) 2 SCC 836, as under:
"Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached."
7. Referring to the above case law, Apex Court in Gurdial Singh Fijji Vs. State of Panjab & Ors (1979) 2 SCC 368 in para 18 said:
"We may also indicate, since the High Court saw the file and discovered that the appellant was not brought on the Select List because he was "not found suitable otherwise", that regulation 5 which deals with the preparation of a list of suitable officers provides by Clause 7 that "if in the process of selection, review or revision it is proposed to supersede any member of the State Civil Service, the Committee shall record its reasons for the proposed supersession". While dealing with an identical provision in Clause 5 of regulation 5 of the same Regulations as they stood then, this Court observed in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor and Ors. (1973)2 SCC 836 that "rubber-stamp" reasons given for the supersession of each officer to the effect that the record of the officer concerned was not such as to justify his appointment "at this stage in preference to those selected", do not amount to "reasons for the proposed supersession" within the meaning of Clause 5. "Reasons", according to Beg J. (with whom Mathew J. concurred) "are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions". The Court accordingly held that the mandatory provisions of regulation 5(5) were not complied with by the Selection Committee. That an officer was "not found suitable" is the conclusion and not a reason in support of the decision to supersede him. True, that it is not expected that the Selection Committee should give anything approaching the judgment of a Court, but it must at least state, as briefly as it may, why it came to the conclusion that the officer concerned was found to be not suitable for inclusion in the Select List. In the absence of any such reason, we are unable to agree with the High Court that the Selection Committee had another "reason" for not bringing the appellant on the Select List."
8. The Apex Court in the case of Uma Charan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. AIR 1981 SC 1915 said:
"Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable"
9. In Mc Dermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 181 Apex Court referring to Bachawat's Law of Arbitration and Conciliation, 4th Edn., pp. 855-56 in para 56 said:
"Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions..."
10. Recently the Apex Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 496 referring to the judgment in Mohan Lal Capoor (supra) in para 23 said:
"Such reasons must disclose how mind was applied to the subject-matter for a decision regardless of the fact whether such a decision is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. This Court held that the reasons in such context would mean the link between materials which are considered and the conclusions which are reached. Reasons must reveal a rational nexus between the two."
11. The Apex Court recently also in Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Anr. JT 2010 (10) SC 26 in para 68 referring to the judgment in the case of Gurdial Singh Fijji (supra) said:
"Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. By practice adopted in all courts and by virtue of judge- made law, the concept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law. Clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and therefore, proper reasoning is foundation of a just and fair decision."
12. Testing the impugned order from the anvil of the exposition of law discussed above, I find that it is undefendable. There is nothing to show an application of mind on the part of the authority concerned vis-a-vis its discussion qua material on record so as to show links between the material and conclusions drawn. One cannot discern from the impugned order as to what prevail in the mind of the authority concerned to draw a particular conclusion. Since the impugned appellate order cannot be said to be reasoned and speaking order, it cannot sustain.
13. The writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned appellate order dated 24.09.2010 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing all concerned parties.
Order date 25.07.2011 KA