Allahabad High Court
Sonu Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 16 December, 2022
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32364 of 2022
Petitioner :- Sonu Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Pathak
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
The petitioner has preferred the present petition inter alia with the prayer to quash the order dated 14.9.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Bareilly Division Bareilly in Revision No. 542 of 2022.
It is argued that against the order dated 1.7.2022 passed by the Up Zila Adhikari Aonla, District Bareilly in Appeal No. 04617 of 2020 (Computerized Case No. T202012130204617) statutory revision was filed by the petitioner, but the same was rejected without giving any reasons whatsoever. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner is reproduced below:
"?? ???????? ? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???"
Apart from the same it is argued that the order impugned has been passed without any application of mind. No cogent reasons has been given in the aforesaid order. In the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 it was held in paragraph 47 that the courts should always insist on the recording of the reasons by administrative authorities in exercise of their powers. It was further held in the aforesaid judgment that such recording of reasons is required as ""the Courts cannot exercise their duty of review unless they are advised of the considerations underlying the action under review". The paragraph 47 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"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 lifeblood 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 the 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".
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Standing Counsel is permitted to seek instructions from the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Bareilly Division Bareilly, namely, Ms. Preeti Jaiswal, who passed the aforesaid order, is directed to file her personal affidavit within five days.
Put up this matter as fresh for further hearing within top ten cases on 22nd of December, 2022
In absence of aforesaid affidavit, Ms. Preeeti Jaiswal, Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Bareilly Division Bareilly, is directed to appear in person before the Court on the next date fixed in the matter.
Till then, the effect and operation of the aforesaid order dated 14.9.2022 shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 16.12.2022
Sumaira
