Abdul Hapheej vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3317 MP

1                                                 WP No.10739/2021


 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE

                           WP No. 10739/2021

    (ABDUL HAPHEEJ AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AND OTHERS)
Indore, Dated 15-07-2021


       Heard through Video Conferencing.

       Dr Manohar Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioners

       Mr Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Additional Advocate

General for the respondents State.

With the consent finally heard.

02. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submits that

the learned appellate authority has passed the impugned order dated

24-03-2021 (Annexure-P-1) without considering the grounds raised

in the appeal memo and without assigning any reason. Against a

similar order, WP No. 10472/2021 (Abdul Rashid and another Vs.

State of M.P. and others) dated 01-07-2021 was filed in which

appellate order was set aside because reasons were not assigned.

For the same reason, impugned order in the instant case deserves to

be interfered with.

03. Mr Bhargava, learned Additional Advocate General for the

respondents State fairly submits that the impugned order herein is

similar to the order which was set aside in aforesaid writ petition

and, therefore, fate of this matter must be the same. This court in

WP No. 10472/2021 opined as under :-

"04. A conjoint reading of appeal memo and the impugned order of appellate authority dated 24.02.2021 annexure P-1 shows that certain grounds of appeal memo were mentioned in last paragraph of impugned order dated 24.03.2021. Thereafter, the appellate authority recorded following conclusion:-

"esjs }kjk vihykFkhZ }kjk izLrqr rdksZ ,oa dysDVj dk;kZy; ls izkIr vfHkys[kksa dk fu;eksa ds izdk'k esa voyksdu fd;k x;k] ftlds i'pkr fu"d"kZ ;g gS fd tIr'kqnk okgu dks ekSds ij oS+/k izkf/kdkj ,oa 'kkldh; vuqefr ds fcuk voS/k :i esa ifjogu djr ik;s tkus ds dkj.k tIr dj jktlkr fd;s tkus ds vkns'k fnukad 01-01-2021 ls vij dysDVj mTtSu } kjk ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] ftls fu;ekuqlkj gksus ls gLr{ksi ;ksX; ugha ikrs gq, ;Fkkor j[kk tkrk gSA izLrqr vihy ,rn~}kjk vekU; dh tkrh gSA"

(emphasis supplied) A plain reading of this conclusion shows that it is not founded upon any reason. The reasons are held to be heartbeat of conclusion. In absence of reason, conclusion cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.

05. The Apex Court in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496 emphasized the need of assigning reasons in administrative, quasi judicial and judicial orders. The relevant portion 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 quasijudicial 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".

(emphasis supplied) If the impugned order is tested on the anvil of the principles laid down in Kranti (supra), it will make the order vulnerable.

06. The appellate authority without assigning any reason, jumped to the conclusion. Such orders are totally unknown to law and could not have been passed by a quasi-judicial adjudicating authority. We may note this with pain that in sizable number of matters such non-speaking appellate orders are called in question before this Court. If reasoned and speaking orders are passed by adjudicating authorities, many times, the litigation may come to an

end at their end itself because a litigant may feel satisfied by the reasons assigned for not accepting his appeal. However, when no reasons are assigned, his grievance subsists and he approaches the higher forum. Thus, this is an avoidable piece of litigation and the learned Director is solely responsible for generating this litigation. We deprecate the practice of passing of such non-speaking orders at the level of such senior officer.

07. Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Additional Advocate General fairly submits that the observation of this Court will be communicated to the concerned officer in order to ensure that henceforth, such cryptic orders are not passed.

08. Considering the aforesaid, in this round of litigation, we are not inclined to impose any cost on the concerned officer for passing such a cryptic and non-speaking order. The impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and resultantly, the order dated 24.03.2021 is set aside. The matter is restored in the file of learned Director with a direction to decide it within 30 days by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits of the case."

04. The impugned order dated 24-03-2021 is liable to be set aside

for the same reason this court interfered with the order impugned in

Writ Petition No. 10472/2021. In absence of assigning reasons, the

impugned order dated 25-03-2021 is set-aside. The matter is

remitted back before the appellate authority with the direction to

pass a fresh order, in accordance with law. It is made clear that this

court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed

of. Certified copy as per rules.

             ( SUJOY PAUL )                                                                ( ANIL VERMA)
                JUDGE                                                                         JUDGE




Rashmi



      RASHMI
                              Digitally signed by RASHMI PRASHANT

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=JUDICIAL, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=f74a61c75cf3ec3bb1707109fa80dae90250b08731316350b fccd08d3ef3980c,

PRASHANT pseudonym=148AEE4D4C2B5EA645B3624C25082058AF895C6C, serialNumber=20C624ED34BE4C97025442392973B5B63C7382F71E 92F7ADA789ADAA6DDE9345, cn=RASHMI PRASHANT Date: 2021.07.16 11:52:55 +05'30'