Allahabad High Court
M/S Essbee Media Pvt. Ltd. And 2 ... vs Assistant Provident Fund ... on 1 December, 2022
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36391 of 2022
Petitioner :- M/S Essbee Media Pvt. Ltd. And 2 Others
Respondent :- Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranjal Mehrotra
Counsel for Respondent :- Jagdish Pathak
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioners inter-alia with the prayer to quash the order dated 22.12.2021 passed by the respondent no.1 by which the review application filed by the petitioner under Section 7-B to the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provision Act, 1952 was rejected.
Today when the matter is taken up, Shri Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 is placed before this Court the instructions received from the office of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Legal, the same is taken on record.
Apart from various other arguments, one of the argument raised by Shri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Pranjal Mehrotra and Ms. Shivangi Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners that order impugned has been passed without providing any reasons whatsoever. In support of the aforesaid arguments he placed reliance upon judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others reported in (2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 496. Paragraph-47 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein-below:-
"47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:
a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.
c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.
d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.
e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.
h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.
k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process.
m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).
n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA), wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".
o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process"."
It is not disputed by the counsel for the respondents that reasons were not assigned by the respondent no. 1 while passing the order dated 22.12.2021.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
After perusal of the record it transpires that no reasons were assigned by the respondent no.1 while rejecting the review application filed by the petitioners.
In view of the facts as narrated above, since no reasons provided, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside.
Respondent no. 1/Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization is directed to pass a fresh order on the review application strictly in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before him.
Counsel for the petitioner is further directed to serve the copy of this order before the respondent no. 1 within a period of ten days from today.
Till the time, the decision is taken in the review application no coercive action be taken against the petitioners.
With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 1.12.2022
Swati
