Allahabad High Court
Board Of Management O.G.P. Apartt. ... vs State Of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 16 April, 2025
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21244
Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3560 of 2025
Petitioner :- Board Of Management O.G.P. Apartt. Owners Welfare Association Thru.Presi. Manish Kumar Dube And Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance, Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nirankar Singh,Rajani Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashutosh Misra,Rinki Devi
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Ashutosh Misra, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the private-respondent No.4 on caveat.
At the very outset, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioners, who claimed to be the duly elected members of the Owners Welfare Association, Omega Green Park Apartment have instituted the instant petition seeking the following reliefs:-
"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 14/02/25 passed by the opposite party no.2, in the interest of justice Annxure No.2 to this WRIT-C.
2. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties especially the opposite party no.2 to allow the petitioners to continue and complete their present term, in the interest of justice."
Primarily, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per the bylaws, the last election were held in the year 2023. Prior to the conclusion of the term of the Committee of Management, a notice for holding an annual general meeting was issued, in pursuance whereof, the Committee of which the petitioners No.2 to 10 were elected had taken charge.
The private-respondent No.4, who led a rival faction had made a complaint to the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Lucknow raising objections regarding the manner in which the elections were held.
It is stated that the Deputy Registrar had called upon the parties concerned to file their respective response. It is urged that the relevant material was placed on record both by the petitioners as well as by the private-respondent No.4. The hearing was concluded in December, 2024, however, the impugned order has been passed on 14.02.2025, whereby the respondent No.2 has opined that the election as claimed by the petitioners was not in accordance with the Rules and declared the Committee of the petitioners as time barred and further take upon himself to hold the elections in exercise of powers under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as duly amended in the State of U.P.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that first and foremost, the order passed by the Deputy Registrar is completely non-reasoned and non-speaking and on this ground alone, it deserves to be set aside. Certain other contentions were made on merit, however, this Court refrained itself to take note for the reasons that it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the order impugned dated 14.02.2025 is a non-speaking and non-reasoned.
It is now well settled to be not disputed that any authority whether judicial or quasi-judicial, who is required to undertake certain function in order to adjudicate any dispute, then in such circumstances, giving reasons is absolutely essential. The reasons has been treated to be the heart and soul of any order. In this regard, the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Cyril Lasrado (Dead) by LRs and another vs. Juliana Maria Lasrado and another, (2004) 7 SCC 431 would be appropriate to be noticed, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:-
"11. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable.
12. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union [(1971) 1 All ER 1148 : (1971) 2 QB 175 : (1971) 2 WLR 742 (CA)] observed : (All ER p. 1154h) "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration." In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120] it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at." Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance."
Considering the aforesaid observations and testing the impugned order on the strength of observations made by the Apex Court, learned counsel for the private-respondent No.4 also could not dispute that the order impugned is grossly without reasons and is a non-speaking.
In view of the aforesaid, at the admission stage itself, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 is set aside and quashed. The respondent No.2 - Deputy Registrar is directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the parties and pass a fresh order after taking note of the material placed before him and pass a reasoned and speaking order preferably within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the respondent No.2.
It is made clear that the Court has set aside the impugned order primarily on the ground that it is non-speaking or non-reasoned. All the pleas on merits of the case is left open to be urged before the respondent No.2, needless to say, who shall decide the same in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. Costs are made easy.
Order Date :- 16.4.2025
Rakesh/-
