G R Infraprojects Limited Having ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1104 Jhar

                                       1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          W.P.(C) No. 3885 of 2020
                                       ---

G R Infraprojects Limited having its registered office at Kochariya, Ahmedabad, Gujarat and corporate office at Gurugram, Haryana through its authorized signatory Monit Bhatnagar ... ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

2. The District Mining Officer, Ramgarh

3. The Assistant Mining Officer, Ramgarh

4. The Certificate Officer (Mining), North Chotanagpur Circle, Hazaribagh .... ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Sundaram, Advocate Mr. Abhijeet Tushar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Praveen Akhauri, S.C. (Mines)-I Mr. Sarabhil Ahmed, A.C. to S.C. (Mines)-I Order No. 06 Dated: 14.03.2023

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated 12.07.2017 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Certificate Officer (Mining), North Chotanagpur Circle, Hazaribagh (the respondent no. 4) in Certificate Case no. 11 of 2014-15, whereby the petitioner's objection filed under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (in short, "the Act, 1914") has been rejected summarily without recording any reason whatsoever merely on the basis of request made by the Assistant Mining Officer, Ramgarh (the respondent no. 3) and, thereafter, demand notice dated 16.09.2020 has been issued against the petitioner for recovery of the certificate amount of Rs.76,80,000/- and interest of Rs.61,74,720/- accrued on the said original amount (total Rs.1,38,54,820/-).

2. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no. 4 while passing the impugned order dated 12.07.2017 has not assigned any reason. It has simply been observed in the said order that in the light of request made by the requisitioning officer, the objection filed by the petitioner against recovery of certificate amount is rejected and thereafter the office has been directed to issue demand letter for realisation of the said amount.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 justifying the certificate amount for which the requisition of Rs.76,80,000/- was filed by the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh (the respondent no. 2). Learned counsel for the respondents also raises an objection with regard to maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that the petitioner

has efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring appeal under Section 60 of the Act, 1914 against the impugned order dated 12.07.2017 passed by the respondent no. 4.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

5. On bare perusal of the impugned order dated 12.07.2017, it appears that an application was made by the requisitioning officer to reject the petitioner's objection filed against the certificate amount and on the basis of the said application, the petitioner's objection has been rejected directing the office to issue demand letter for realisation of the certificate amount.

6. Undoubtedly, the impugned order dated 12.07.2017 passed by the respondent no. 4 is completely unreasoned and cryptic. It is a settled law that the administrative/quasi-judicial authority while taking a decision particularly if the same is going to adversely affect a person, is required to assign proper reason so as to enable him/her to at least know as to on what basis, his/her case has been rejected. Moreover, assigning reason in an order checks arbitrary exercise of power and suggests proper application of mind.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in the case of Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall Vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 732 has held that not only an administrative but also a judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. The hallmark of an order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of justice-delivery system, to make 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. It has further been held that reason introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it becomes lifeless. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum.

8. In the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Others reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"40. In Kranti Associates [(2010) 9 SCC 496] this Court after considering various judgments formulated certain principles in SCC para 47 of the judgment which are set out below : (SCC pp.

510-12) "(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(1987) 100 Harv. L. Rev. 731-37.)

(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], EHRR at p. 562, para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405:2001 ICR 847 (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'."

9. Thus, the judicial, administrative as well as quasi-judicial authorities are bound to record reasons while passing any order especially when such decision affects anyone prejudicially. Reason is the heartbeat of any decision. On the one hand it gives clarity in the decision and on the other hand it excludes the chance of arbitrariness in the decision making.

10. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that even if the impugned order is unreasoned, the petitioner has the efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring appeal against the same, is concerned, the same is bound to be rejected, particularly keeping in view that if such cryptic/unreasoned order is ignored by the constitutional courts, the same encourages the administrative/quasi-judicial authorities to continue passing such orders.

11. The impugned order dated 12.07.2017 passed by the respondent no. 4 in Certificate Case no.11 of 2014-15 being completely unreasoned and cryptic, cannot be sustained in law and the same is accordingly quashed. The subsequent demand raised against the petitioner in the said certificate case is also quashed. The matter is remanded to the respondent no. 4 to pass a fresh reasoned order on the petitioner's objection filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 after providing opportunity of hearing to its representative.

12. Since the petitioner has contended in the writ petition that after filing of the objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1914, its address has changed, it shall furnish the present address to the respondent no. 4.

13. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

Ritesh/                                                          (Rajesh Shankar, J.)