Allahabad High Court
Nizam Ansari vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 17 May, 2025
Author: Prakash Padia
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82552
Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15758 of 2025
Petitioner :- Nizam Ansari
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Yadav,Ram Chandra Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
1. The order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Deoria, is under challenge in the present writ petition. By the aforesaid order direction was given to recover a sum of Rs.1,38,000/- from the petitioner for misappropriation of funds at the time when he was working on the post of Pradhan. The aforesaid order was passed in terms of Section 27(1) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
2. The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that on the basis of complaint made by one Mohit Rao dated 05.07.2024, ex-parte enquiry was conducted and thereafter enquiry committee submitted its report dated 02.10.2024. Pursuant to the aforesaid a show cause notice dated 24.01.2025 was issued to the petitioner. Reply to the same was submitted by the petitioner but without considering the reply submitted by him the order impugned has been passed.
3. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that the complaint submitted by the complainant was as per procedure prescribed under Rule 3 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. It is further argued that reply submitted by the petitioner was not at all taken into consideration by the respondent no.2 before passing the aforesaid order. The reply submitted by the petitioner was discarded only by one line that the explanation was found baseless. The relevant portion reads as follows :-
"????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????????? /??????? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?????????? / ??????? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? "
4. From perusal of the aforesaid it is clear that before passing the order impugned respondent no.2 has not at all applied her mind. The Hon'ble Apex Court again in the case of Kranti Associate Private Limited and another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 has held that recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi judicial or even administrative power. The Paragraph Nos.46 & 47 of the aforesaid judgement reads as follows:-
"46. The position in the United States has been indicated by this Court in S.N. Mukherjee (1990) 4 SCC 594 of the judgment. This Court held that in the United States the courts have always insisted on the recording of reasons by administrative authorities in exercise of their powers. It was further held 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". In S.N. Mukherjee this Court relied on the decisions of the US Court in Securities and Exchange d Commission v. Chenery Corpn. 421 US 560 80 (542) and Dunlop v. Bachowski 421 US 560 80 (1942) in support of its opinion discussed above.
47. Summarising 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).
(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 v. 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?."
5. The only question for consideration is as to whether any finding given by the revenue court without giving any reason could be upheld or not.
6. Reasons are the backbone of the order and only from the deciphered as to what persuaded the authority to draw a particular conclusion. Once the petitioner is not aware of the reasons, then this Court can ignore the availability of alternative remedy because in absence of reasons, the petitioner is not in a position to meet out the grounds on which his application was rejected.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Trustees v. M/s Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd. decided in C.A. No.7240/2018 has held as under:
"14. Indeed, in the absence of any application of judicial mind to the factual and legal controversy involved in the appeal and without there being any discussion, appreciation, reasoning and categorical findings on the issues and why the findings impugned in the writ petition deserve to be upheld or reversed, while dealing with the arguments of the parties in the light of legal principles applicable to the case, it is difficult for this Court to sustain such order of the Division Bench. The only expression used by the Division Bench in disposing of the writ petition is "on due consideration". It is not clear to us as to what was that due consideration which persuaded the Division Bench to dispose of the writ petition because we find that in the earlier paras only facts are set out.
15. Time and again, this Court has emphasized on the Courts the need to pass reasoned order in every case which must contain the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issues arising in the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principles applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of the findings on all the issues arising in the case and urged by the learned counsel for the parties in support of its conclusion.It is really unfortunate that the Division Bench failed to keep in mind these principles while disposing of the writ petition. Such order, in our view, has undoubtedly caused prejudice to the parties because it deprived them to know the reasons as to why one party has won and other has lost. We can never countenance the manner in which such order was passed by the High Court which has compelled us to remand the matter to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh on merits."
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, reported in (2022) 4 SCC 497 has held as under :-
"32. On the aspect of the duty to accord reasons for a decision arrived at by a court, or for that matter, even a quasi-judicial authority, it would be useful to refer to a judgment of this Court in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan [Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496 (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 852], wherein after referring to a number of judgments this Court summarised at para 47 the law on the point. The relevant principles for the purpose of this case are extracted as under:
32.1. 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.
32.2. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.
32.3. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
32.4. 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.
32.5. 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.
32.6. 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.
32.7. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.
32.8. 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.
32.9. 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.
32.10. 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 Harvard Law Review 731-37])
32.11. 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".
9. Learned Standing Counsel submits that instead of keeping the matter pending it would be appropriate that the authority concerned be permitted to re-visit the issue.
10. In that view of the matter, it would be appropriate to set aside the order of the District Magistrate, Deoria. dated 01.05.2025, and remit the matter to the District Magistrate to objectively consider the reply of the petitioner and to pass a fresh order, depicting application of mind to the materials collected in the preliminary enquiry as also the defence of petitioner in that regard.
11. Writ petition, accordingly, is allowed.
Order Date :- 17.5.2025
Pramod Tripathi
