Bombay High Court
Raje Sambhaji Bahuddeshiya ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 22 July, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 906.wp.12358.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 12358 OF 2015
Raje Sambhaji Bahuddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha,
Dagadi Shahajanpur,
Tq. & Dist.Beed.
Through it's Secretary,
Shivaji s/o Govindrao Chavan,
Aged : 42 years, Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Shriramnagar, Beed.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1
The State of Maharashtra.
Through its Principal Secretary to
the Government of Maharashtra in
Social Welfare Department,
Maharashtra State,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2 The Hon'ble Minister,
Social Welfare Department,
Maharashtra State,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
3 The Commissioner of Handicapped,
Maharashtra State,
3, Church Road, Pune-411001.
4 The Regional Deputy Commissioner,
Social Welfare Department,
Aurangabad.
5 The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Beed.
6 The District Social Welfare Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Beed.
...RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 27/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 23:44:20 :::
*2* 906.wp.12358.15
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1564 OF 2016
IN WP/12358/2015
SHINDESHOR SHANKAR WAGHAMDE AND OTHERS.
-VERSUS-
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS.
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3321 OF 2016
IN WP/12358/2015
LATE ANNASAHEB PATIL.
-VERSUS-ig
RAJE SAMBHAJI BAHUDDESHIYA SEVABHAVI SANSTHA AND OTHERS.
...
Shri Kute Rajendra L., Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri A.B.Girase, Government Pleader a/w Shri S.G.Karlekar, AGP, for the
Respondents/State.
Shri A.D.Aghav, Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 and 6.
Shri A.M.Gaikwad h/f Shri A.B.Hawale, Advocate for the Intervener in
Civil Application No.1564/2016.
Ms.S.V.Salunke h/f Shri V.D.Salunke, Advocate for the Intervener in Civil
Application No.3321/2016.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 22nd July, 2016
Oral Judgment :
1 While issuing notice in this matter on 22.12.2015, it was
observed as under:-
*3* 906.wp.12358.15
"1 The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
13.05.2015 passed by Respondent No.4 by which the
recognition of the Petitioner School has been
withdrawn. The grievance is that this order has been
passed without hearing the Petitioner.
2 The Petitioner preferred an appeal before the
Honourable Minister for Social Welfare, Maharashtra
State, Mumbai. By the impugned order dated
24.11.2015, the appeal has been rejected.
4 With the assistance of Shri Kute, learned Advocate for
the Petitioner and the learned AGP, I have gone
through the impugned order dated 24.11.2015.
I do not find even a single sentence in the impugned
order which can be said to be the reason assigned by
the Honourable Minister for rejecting the appeal filed
by the Petitioner and upholding the order dated
13.05.2015 passed by Respondent No.4.
6 Issue notice before admission to the Respondents,
returnable on 25.01.2016.
7 The learned AGP waives service for Respondent Nos.1,
2, 3 and 4. Shri Aghav, learned Advocate waives
service for Respondent Nos.5 and 6.
8 Till the next date of hearing in this matter, the
impugned orders dated 13.05.2015 and 24.11.2015
shall stand stayed."
2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
3 Considering the order that I intend to pass in the light of the
observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in paragraph 27 of it's
*4* 906.wp.12358.15
judgment in the case of Sant Lal Gupta vs. Modern Cooperative Group
Housing Society Limited, (2010) 13 SCC 336, I am not required to advert
to the entire submissions of the learned Advocates as well as deal with the
respective contentions on the merits of this matter.
4 The order dated 24.11.2015 is impugned in this petition. On
a bare reading of this order, notwithstanding the strenuous submissions of
the learned Government Pleader, who has made a valiant attempt to
justify the order, I do not find any strain or element of reason therein. So
also, it is the specific contention of the Petitioner in paragraph 4 of it's
appeal memo, page 90 of the petition paper book, that the report of the
Enquiry Committee dated 27.02.2015 was not supplied to the Petitioner
on the basis of which the Regional Deputy Commissioner, Social Welfare
Department, Aurangabad had passed the order dated 13.05.2015 thereby,
cancelling the registration certificate of the Petitioner.
5 The Honourable Apex Court in Sant Lal Gupta judgment
(supra) has observed in paragraph 27 as under:-
"27. It is a settled legal proposition that not only
administrative but also judicial order 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
*5* 906.wp.12358.15
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 a 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 reason is 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
renders an order indefensible/ unsustainable
particularly when the order is subject to further
challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons
is 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 why his application has been
rejected. [Vide: State of Orissa v. Dhaniram
Luhar AIR 2004 SC 1794; State of Rajasthan v.
Sohan Lal & Ors. (2004) 5 SCC 573; Vishnu Dev
Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 3
SCC 172; Steel Authority of India Ltd. v.
Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle & Ors.
(2008) 9 SCC 407; State of Uttaranchal & Anr. v.
Sunil Kumar Singh Negi AIR 2008 SC 2026;
U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Jagdish Prasad Gupta AIR 2009
SC 2328; Ram Phal v. State of Haryana &
Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 258; State of Himachal Pradesh
v. Sada Ram & Anr. (2009) 4 SCC 422;
*6* 906.wp.12358.15
and The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial
Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Ors.,
AIR 2010 SC 1285]."
6 Considering the above, the impugned order passed by the
Honourable Minister deserves to be set aside only for remitting the matter
back to the Honourable Minister so as to hear the litigating sides including
the interveners, who are said to be teachers, in the appeal filed by the
Petitioner on a given date and for passing a reasoned order.
7 The Petitioner contends that there are about 20 students
studying in the said school at issue. The learned Advocates appearing for
the teachers as well as on behalf of the Zilla Parishad submit that there are
no students presently admitted for the academic year 2016-2017 and as
such, even if it is presumed that the school at issue is operating, it is
purely a paper arrangement as there is no student admitted.
8 In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed.
The impugned order dated 24.11.2015 is set aside and Appeal
No.261/2015 is remitted back to the concerned Authority for a decision
afresh with the following directions:-
(a) All the litigating sides are agreeable to appear before the
Honourable Minister in his Chambers at 02:30 pm on 20 th
*7* 906.wp.12358.15
August, 2016. Hence, no separate notice of hearing.
(b) The Honourable Minister will graciously grant two and half
hours time for the hearing in this appeal and shall give each
party an equal time to make their oral submissions.
(c) All the litigating sides as well as the interveners are at liberty
to address the Honourable Minister orally and file their
written notes of submissions as well.
(d) The Honourable Minister shall not entertain any request for
adjournment on behalf of any party under any pretext and
shall conclude the hearing by 05:00 pm or as he may find fit
and proper on the said date 20.08.2016.
(e) The Honourable Minister is requested to decide the matter/
appeal on or before 03.09.2016 and copies of the order to be
passed, shall be forwarded to each of the litigating sides.
(f) The Social Justice Department and the Zilla Parishad shall
assist the Honourable Minister by placing before him a
truthful picture as to whether, any student has been admitted
in the said school for the academic year 2016-2017.
(g) Since the Honourable Minister is to hear the Petitioner and all
the litigating sides afresh, he shall consider the rival
contentions and merits of the matter and therefore, the
contention of the Petitioner that he was not heard by any of
*8* 906.wp.12358.15
the Authorities below, shall not be canvassed.
9 Needless to state, setting aside of the impugned order shall
not create any equities in favour of the Petitioner School as well as if any
students are admitted in the said school for the current academic year, it
shall not be a ground for the Petitioner to continue to operate the said
school.
Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
11 Considering the fact that I have heard the learned Advocates
for the interveners, both the Civil Applications filed for seeking
intervention are disposed of.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
