Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dulal Chandra Das vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 24 March, 2022
24.03.2022 CAN 1 of 2022
in
Court
Item
: 04
: PB-03
MAT 36 of 2022
Matter : MAT
Status : DISPOSED OF
Transcriber: nandy
Dulal Chandra Das
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Biswarup Biswas, Advocate
Mr. Dwariknath Mukherjee, Advocate
Mr. Sayantan Hazra, Advocate
......for the Appellant
Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay, Advocate
Ms. Sayantanee Bhattacharjee, Advocate
......for the State
This appeal is directed against a judgment
and order dated January 5, 2022 passed by the
single Bench in WPA 17704 of 2021, whereby
and whereunder the writ-petition was dismissed
holding that there is no infirmity in the report of
the District Inspector of Schools, Murshidabad.
The first paragraph of the impugned order
indicates that the dispute pertains to the higher
scale of pay, which the petitioner claimed, on
enhancing the qualification i.e. the Master
Degree. The District Inspector rejected the said
claim, which was challenged in the said writ-
petition. Before we proceed, it would be profitable
to quote the order impugned in the instant appeal
which runs thus:-
"This is a matter relates to Higher Scale of Pay of the
petitioner which has been rejected by the District Inspector of
Schools (SE), Murshidabad as appears from his hearing report
dated 26.10.2021 which is at page 68 (Annexure - P/17) of the
2
writ application.
On perusal and consideration of the said report dated
26.10.2021, I do not find any infirmity in the said hearing report
annexed to this writ application.
Hence, the instant writ petition is dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly
downloaded from the official website of this Court."
A point has been taken before us that the
said order suffers from infirmity having not
provided any reason for dismissal of the writ-
petition. On bare perusal of the impugned order,
we find such contention to be correct as the
impugned order is bereft of any reason. The
importance of recording reasons in adversarial
system is the hallmark of dispensation of justice.
It is the duty of the Court to record the reasons in
lucid manner so as to percolate a message for
the litigant why his claim has been negatived. It
further achieve the reflection of a thought process
which weighed the Court in not accepting the
contention of the petitioner and also helps the
Appellate Court to conveniently dispose of the
appeal on the parameters of the statutory
provisions and the facts involved therein.
In the aforesaid perspective, time and again,
it has been highlighted that the reason is the
heart and soul of the order without which the
body cannot function. The importance of
providing reason is basically for achieving the
purposes. Firstly, the claim which has been laid
3
and the defence which is projected can clearly be
discerned therefrom and secondly, the 'thought
process' or the point which weighed the Court in
accepting or rejecting such claim, will further
assist the appellate Court in arriving at the
conclusive decision either accepting such findings
or not. In absence of any reason, it is practically
impossible for the appellate Court to guess the
'thought process' which weighed the single Bench
to accept the contention of the petitioner. The
Apex Court in the case of M/s. Kunj Aluminium
Private Limited Vs. M/s. Koninklijke Phillips
Electronics NV reported in (2011) 14 SCC 595
has succinctly highlighted the importance of
providing reasons in the judicial order in the
following:
"5. In our opinion this was not the way to dispose off
an appeal. The Impugned order is too cryptive. There should
have been at least a brief discussion of facts and some
reasons. It has been held by this Court that even an order of
affirmance must give some reasons, even if brief vide
Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya
Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney & Ors. 1 JT 2009
(4) SC 519. Hence we set aside the impugned order and
remand the matter to the Division Bench for a fresh hearing in
accordance with law, expeditiously."
Even the Division Bench of this Court in
Supratik Ghosh Vs. Pasari Housing
Development Private Limited reported in (2000)
1 CHN 614 held:-
"32. In my view, reason is the soul of an order. An order
without reason is a body without soul. It is now well-settled in
4
our judicial discipline that any order passed by the Court
should ordinarily be supported by the reasons because the
reasons express the thought process of the Court which
weighed with the Court to pass such order. Mere quoting a
few words from the statute or reiteration of something from
the pleasing would not amount to reason. I am of the view
that the order which is subject matter of the present appeal
did not disclose any reason why the interim order was
necessary and passed by the Court. In my opinion, an order
even if it is of a Court is not supported by any reason that
would render the order arbitrary, fanciful and vague. Even an
order of a Court cannot be permitted to be arbitrary, fanciful
or vague."
The law as expounded in the above noted
decision, leaves no ambiguity that the order
bereft of any reason is no order in the eye of law
and cannot be sustained. Even the Division
Bench of this Court while restating the aforesaid
principle has proceeded further to brand the said
order as null and void and cannot be allowed to
stand.
Such being be position, any order which is
bereft of any reason is unsustainable and liable to
be interfered by the Appellate Court solely on the
ground that the order is lacking reasons while
deciding the cause shown in the writ-petition.
The order impugned is hereby set aside.
The matter is remitted back to the single
Bench for deciding the same after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the respective parties
and by recording proper reasons.
5
We have been given to understand that the
writ-petition was dismissed on the threshold
without inviting the affidavits from the
respondents.
Therefore, we direct the respondents to file
the affidavit-in-opposition within three weeks from
date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within a week
thereafter.
The writ-petition shall thereafter be decided
on merits.
With these observations, the MAT 36 of
2022 as well as the connected application being
CAN 1 of 2022 are disposed of.
(Harish Tandon, J.)
(Rabindranath Samanta, J.)
