Allahabad High Court
Sarojani Devi vs Union Of India And 2 Others on 2 February, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Naqvi, Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18373 of 2020
Petitioner :- Sarojani Devi
Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Singh,Amrendra Nath Singh (Senior Adv.)
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Amrish Sahai,Vikas Budhwar
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ajay Singh for the petitioner and Sri Vikas Budhwar for respondents.
By means of present petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 24.3.2020 by which respondent no. 2 has cancelled the subject location for allotment of retail outlet dealership at village Telia Kala, P.S. Maeel, Barhaj to Maeel Road, block Bhagalpur, district Deoria.
Learned Senior Counsel submits that pursuant to an advertisement dated 25.11.2018, the petitioner applied for allotment of retail outlet dealership for the subject location and qualified in draw of lots vide letter dated 20.6.2019. But by the impugned order, the subject location has been cancelled without assigning any reason. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of law as well as principles of natural justice.
Sri Budhwar, learned counsel for corporation submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and tries to justify the impugned order.
We have perused the records.
On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the respondent-corporation has not recorded any conclusion in the impugned order and without assigning any reason, the subject location for retail outlet dealership has been cancelled.
It is well settled that the administrative order, too, must be supported by the reasons recorded therein. The reason is heartbeat of every conclusion. The absence of reason makes an order unsustainable. One of the most important aspects for insisting to record reason is that it substitutes the subjectivity with objectivity. It is also treated as a part of natural justice and fair play. An order without valid reasons cannot be sustained.
Highlighting aforesaid rule, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla & Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785, has observed that the administrative authority and the tribunal are obliged to give reasons, absence thereof would render the order liable to judicial chastisement. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgement are quoted as under:-
"10. The increasing institution of cases in all Courts in India and its resultant burden upon the Courts has invited attention of all concerned in the justice administration system. Despite heavy quantum of cases in Courts, in our view, it would neither be permissible nor possible to state as a principle of law, that while exercising power of judicial review on administrative action and more particularly judgment of courts in appeal before the higher Court, providing of reasons can never be dispensed with. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard. Secondly, the concerned authority should provide a fair and transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order. This has been uniformly applied by courts in India and abroad.
11. The Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India [(1990) 4 SCC 594], while referring to the practice adopted and insistence placed by the Courts in United States, emphasized the importance of recording of reasons for decisions by the administrative authorities and tribunals. It said "administrative process will best be vindicated by clarity in its exercise". To enable the Courts to exercise the power of review in consonance with settled principles, the authorities are advised of the considerations underlining the action under review. This Court with approval stated:-
"11. ...the orderly functioning of the process of review requires that the grounds upon which the administrative agency acted be clearly disclosed and adequately sustained."
The Courts have consistently taken the view that recording of reason is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. A litigant, who approaches the Court with a grievance in accordance with law, is entitled to know the reason for grant or rejection of his prayer. An administrative order without reasons causes prejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced, as that litigant is unable to know the ground which weighed with the Authority in rejecting his claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher Court in the event of challenge to that administrative order.
In view of above, the impugned order dated 24.3.2020 cannot be sustainable in the eyes of law and it is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the respondent authority, who shall decide the same afresh by reasoned and speaking order after furnishing opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders, in accordance with law.
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 2.2.2021
Rahul Dwivedi/-
