Jharkhand High Court
Tilotma Devi Wife Of Ram Pratap Paswan vs The Union Of India Through Its Chairman on 3 January, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 4732 of 2022
Tilotma Devi wife of Ram Pratap Paswan, resident of House
No.12, Ward No.14, Gulabdag, Purandaha, PS Deoghar (Town),
PO & District Deoghar.
... Petitioner
-versus-
1. The Union of India through its Chairman, Ministry of Railway,
Office at Rail Bhawan-1, Raisina Road, PO PS Sansad Marg,
New Delhi 110001.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway, Asansol,
District Burdwan, West Bengal.
3. The Senior Divisional Engineer (II), Eastern Railway-cum-
Estate Officer, Asansol, District Burdwan, West Bengal.
4. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary,
Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Office at HEC,
Dhurwa, Ranchi.
5. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar.
6. The Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Kumar, Addl. S.G.I.
Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, CGC
Mr. Sreenu Garapati, SC III
----
6/ 03.01.2024 Though this case has been listed under the heading "For
Orders", with the request and consent of the parties, this writ petition is being
disposed of at this stage itself.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional
Solicitor General of India for the respondents-Railways.
3. The short issue, which falls for consideration before this Court is
whether the impugned order can be sustained and whether the same reflects
any reasons for passing the said order.
4. A proceeding was initiated under Section 5 of the Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act against the petitioner. Final order
was passed on 30.05.2022 by the Senior Divisional Engineer (2), Eastern
Railway, Asansol. The order reads as follows: -
OFFICER OF THE ESTATE OFFICER
DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER'S OFFICE
EASTERN RAILWAY, ASANSOL
No.WM/LC/Eviction/Sr.DEN/2 Asansol, dated:30.05.2022
Sri/Smt/Kumari Paswan Jee (White Building)
KM 5.420 JB LINE
Satsang, Deoghar
PIN-814116
Sub: WM/LC/Eviction/Sr.DEN/2
In the matter of Order under sub-section(1) of section
5 of the public premises (Eviction of unauthorized
Occupants) Act 1971.
Whereas I, the undersigned, am satisfied for the reason recorded below
that you are in unauthorized occupation of the public premises specified
in schedule below.
REASON
Whereas I, the undersigned, am satisfied that you failed to utilize the
opportunity you were given to appear before the undersigned within a
period as specified in previous notice dated 25.05.2022 to show cause.
OR
Whereas I am satisfied that the statement/examination submitted vide
your representation dt NIL is not satisfactory and convincing.
Now, therefore in exercise of the power conferred upon me under sub-
section (1) of section 5 of the public premises (Eviction of unauthorized
occupants) Act, 1971 I hereby order the said Paswan Jee (White
Building), and all other person who may be in occupation of the said
premises or part thereof to vacate the said premises 30.06.2022 in the
event of refusal of failure to comply with this order within the period
specified above the said Paswan Jee (White Building), and other person
concerned are liable to be evicted from the said premises, if need be, by
the use of such force as may be necessary.
SCHEDULE
Sri/Smt/Kumari Paswan Jee (White Building)
KM 5.420 JB LINE
Satsang, Deoghar
PIN-814116
SIGNATURE AND SEAL OF THE
ESTATE OFFICER
Sr. Divisional Engineer (2)
Eastern Railway, Asansol
5. From the aforesaid order, it is quite clear that the same lacks
application of mind. No reasons have been assigned on any of the issues nor
any issues have been framed. How the petitioner is unauthorized occupant,
how her reply was unsatisfactory and why the same was not accepted have
also not been mentioned in the order. Reasons are indispensible components
and in absence of any reasons while coming to conclusion, an order against
any party cannot be sustained.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Kranti Associates (P)
Ltd. versus Masood Ahmed Khan reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, at
paragraph 47 thereof, has summarized the necessity as to why judicial, quasi
judicial or even administrative orders needs to be reasoned one. Paragraph 47
of the said judgment reads as under: -
"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 [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 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 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"."
7. The only ground, which the learned counsel for the respondents
has urged is that the order is appealable. However, I am not inclined to
relegate the petitioner to the Appellate Authority, inasmuch as considering the
nature of the order impugned, the Appellate Authority will also but naturally
pass an order relegating the matter to the Estate Officer to proceed afresh in
accordance with law. Relegating to the Appellate Authority will be a futile
exercise.
8. Thus, since no reason has been mentioned in the impugned order
and the same is cryptic, I am inclined to allow this writ petition by setting aside
the impugned order with a liberty to the Estate Officer to initiate fresh
proceeding and pass appropriate order after affording opportunity to the
petitioner of being heard. The petitioner should appear before the Estate
Officer by 31st January, 2024 along with a copy of this order, failing which, the
proceeding before the Estate Officer will proceed exparte. Further, on
appearance of the petitioner on or before 31st January, 2024, the Estate
Officer shall fix a date when he will commence the proceeding. He is expected
to decide the entire proceeding in accordance with law as expeditiously as
possible. Further, after appearance of this petitioner before the Estate Officer
on or before 31st January, 2024, the Estate Officer will hand over the details of
the properties, which according to the Estate Officer has been unauthorisedly
occupied by the petitioner. He will also give details of the person(s) who has
unauthorisedly occupied and grounds for prima facie coming to the conclusion
that the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant. Only after supplying all the
aforesaid details, the Estate Officer shall proceed with the Eviction Proceeding
under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act.
9. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed with the aforesaid
observations and directions. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
