Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Ahmad vs State Of U.P. And 15 Others on 3 December, 2022
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34523 of 2022
Petitioner :- Mohd. Ahmad
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 15 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhagwan Dutt Pandey,Subhash Chandra Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia with the prayer to quash the order dated 20.10.2022 passed by the respondent no.2/Prescribed Authority/Parganadhikari, Tehsil-Swar, District Rampur, copy of which is appended as annexure 2 to the writ petition.
It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is return candidate. The proceedings were initiated by the respondent no.3 by filing a petition under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The case was registered being Case No.02 of 2021. In the said case issues were framed by the respondent no.2 on 13.09.2022, thereafter an application was filed by the petitioner dated 21.09.2022 with the prayer to issue no.13 and 14 should be decided as preliminary issues. The said application was rejected by the respondent no.2 vide order dated 20.10.2022 hence present writ petition.
Apart from various other arguments one of the arguments has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 20.10.2022 is absolutely non speaking order. In paragraph 14 of the writ petition it is stated that the order has been passed by the Prescribed Authority without considering the application made by the petitioner dated 21.09.2022 and without recording any finding by non speaking order dated 20.10.2022 directed to decide all issues framed together and fixed dated 03.11.2022.
It is argued that this fact is also not denied by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-State.
Law in this connections is well settled that while passing the order reasons should be recorded. 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 SCC 496 held that :-
"51. 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 lifeblood of judicial decisionmaking 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".
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In view of the above, since the order impugned dated 20.10.2022 was passed without providing any reasons, same is liable to be set aside and as such same is hereby set aside.
The respondent no.2 is directed pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned by speaking and reasoned order within a period of three months after the certified copy of the order is supplied by the petitioner within a period of one week.
Accordingly, present writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 3.12.2022
Pramod Tripathi
