Allahabad High Court
Ramavtar Gupta vs State Of Up And 11 Others on 24 May, 2024
Author: Ashutosh Srivastava
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A. F. R.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:95011
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3049 of 2024
Petitioner :- Ramavtar Gupta
Respondent :- State Of Up And 11 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Samarath Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Avanees Kumar Rai under the authority of Samarth Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
Considering the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon private respondent Nos. 3 to 12 is being dispensed with.
The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 24 (4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and is directed against the order dated 30.11.2023 passed in appeal No. 257 of 2022 by the Commissioner (Administration) Varanasi Division, Varanasi in exercise of powers under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 whereby and whereunder the appeal has been dismissed upholding the order dated 4.2.2022 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Chakiya, District Chandauli under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Shri Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel at the very out set submits that the order impugned passed by the learned Commissioner in appeal under Section 24 (4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been made subject to the provisions of Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and finality to the order passed under Section 210 has been attached. He submits that the issue has already been considered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-C No. 25616 of 2021 (Jhinka Devi versus State of U.P. and 4 others). In paras 48 & 49 of the aforesaid decision, the Court has held as under:-
48. The mere fact that there is no further appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner in an appeal under sub-section (4) of Section 24 would not be held to create a bar in invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue under section 210 of the Code. The jurisdiction conferred on the Board under Section 210 to revise the orders passed by the subordinate revenue courts would not be dependent on a motion being made by a party to the case inasmuch as the section confers power upon the Board to exercise revisional jurisdiction independent of any such motion having been made. The fact that a right of appeal is not given to the party concerned would therefore not be held to affect the jurisdiction vested in the Board under Section 210.
49. The provision under sub-section (4) of Section 24, as it existed, prior to the amending Act of 2019, that "the order of the Commissioner shall be final" would therefore be held to mean no more than that the order passed in appeal under sub-section (4) would not be subject to any second appeal. The provision with regard to finality attached to the order of the Commissioner under sub-section (4) would not in any manner be held to limit or control the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon the Board under Section 210.
It is, thus, submitted that in the wake of availability of alternate remedy, the writ petition may not be entertained and the petitioner be relegated to the statutory alternate remedy available.
The submissions of Shri Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel have been refuted by learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the alternate remedy as stated by the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel may not be treated to be an absolute bar inasmuch as the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed in view of the patent illegality committed by the Appellate Authority while passing the impugned order in exercise of powers under Section 24 (4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. He has invited the attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 30.11.2023 to demonstrate that no reasons whatsoever have been stated for rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 4.2.2022 passed under Section 24 of the Code. He submits that the Appellate Authority has merely stated that the order dated 4.2.2022 was a reasoned order passed in accordance with law, which was not liable to be interfered in appeal and accordingly, proceed to reject the appeal.
In order to buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sant Lal Gupta versus Modern, Corporation Group Housing Society Ltd., reported in 2010 (13) SCC 334, in which, in paragraph 27 it has been laid down as under:-
"27. It is settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial orders must be supported by reasons recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. IT is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is for the forum to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of the justice delivery system, to make it known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice.
3....... The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of the matter before Courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the Court concerned had really applied its mind."
The reasons is that the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons rendered an order indefensible/unsustainable particular when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons is the principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected must know any his application has been rejected."
Further reliance has been placed upon a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of C.P. Upadhyay versus Chairman and M.D. Power Grid and others reported in 2017 (121) ALR 69 to submit that reasons are the soul of an order and in its absence such order is rendered lifeless. In the said case, the co-ordinate Bench after considering various decisions of the Apex Court that the appellate order assailed therein did not contain the reasons and having found that the order of the Appellate Authority did not stand the test of judicial scrutiny, set aside the order and remitted back the matter to the Appellate Authority for consideration of the petitioner's appeal, strictly in accordance with law, keeping in view the legal parameters settled for the purpose, some of which were referred to in the order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the order of the Appellate Authority does not contain any reasons and as such, is liable to be set aside and the matter be remitted back for consideration afresh.
Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the record as also the decisions cited at bar and agreeing with the proposition of law laid down therein, this Court is faced with the issue as to entertain the writ petition in the wake of existence of a statutory remedy to assail the orders impugned. Further, the Court finds that the writ petition in the case cited was entertained as the orders impugned therein had attained finality and there was no statutory remedy available. The position in the case at hand is different. The petitioner has an alternate statutory remedy to assail the order of the Appellate Authority in revision.
Recently the Apex Court in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society versus UCO Bank and others, Civil Appeal No. Nil of 2024 (arising out of SLP (c) No. 8867 of 2022) decided on 10th April, 2024, after considering various judgments in Para 29 carved out certain exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy. Some of them being:-
"i) where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question;
ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure;
iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and
iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of nature justice."
In Para 30 of the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has however clarified that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. Paragraph 30 of the aforesaid decision is quoted hereunder:-
"30. It has however been clarified that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance."
In the opinion of the Court, the present case does not fall in any of the exceptions as carved out by the Apex Court in Paragraph 29. Observation made in Para 30, however, is binding.
In view of the above, since the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy of assailing the order dated 30.11.2023 passed in Appeal No. 257 of 2022 under Section 24 (4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy .
Order Date :- 24.5.2024
Ravi Prakash
(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)
