Madhya Pradesh High Court
Akeel Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 June, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.9331 of 2021
(Akeel Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others)
Jabalpur, Dated: 15.06.2021
Heard Through Video Conferencing:
Shri Vivek Agrawawl, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
With the consent, finally heard.
In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and
propriety of order dated 08.04.2021 (Annexure-P/8), whereby the
appeal of the petitioner is dismissed by the Director / appellate
authority.
Criticizing the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner
advanced singular contention. It is contended that in appeal memo and
during oral submissions, petitioner raised various grounds which are
although reproduced in the impugned order, but were not dealt with by
the appellate authority. In absence of reasons, the impugned order
violates principle of natural justice and suffers from procedural
impropriety.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Deputy Advocate General
supported the impugned order. He submits that in case this Court
comes to the conclusion that adequate reasons have not been assigned
by the appellate authority, the matter may be remitted back to the
appellate authority to enable him to pass a fresh order in accordance
with law.
We have heard the parties at length.
We find substance in the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioner. A plain reading of last but one paragraph of the impugned
order shows that appellate authority himself reproduced certain
contentions of the petitioner including (i) petitioner is the first offender
and he has already deposited the penalty. After depositing the penalty,
the question of confiscation of vehicle does not arise and it runs
contrary to the rules (ii) the punishment so imposed must be
commensurate to the offence, whereas in the instant case
disproportionate punishment has been passed (iii) the royalty slip could
not be produced because at the relevant time server of concerned mine
was down. Prior thereto, no such mistakes have ever been found in the
conduct of the petitioner.
The learned Director merely recorded a conclusion in the last
para of the order by holding that as per the argument and impugned
order of the Collector dated 19.01.2021, it is clear that petitioner could
not produce valid documents for transportation of material. No reasons
are assigned as to why aforesaid arguments and grounds raised by the
petitioner did not suit him.
It is minimum expectation from a quasi-judicial / judicial
authority that he will assign adequate reason dealing with each point
raised by the petitioner. Reasons are held to be 'heartbeat of
conclusion'. In absence of reasons, conclusion cannot sustain judicial
scrutiny.
The Apex Court emphasized the need of assigning reasons in
administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial function in the case of Kranti
Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496 in
following words:-
"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 e 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)
As noticed above, the learned appellate authority has failed to
assign reasons while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner by impugned
order dated 08.04.2021. Resultantly, this order is set aside. The matter
is restored in the file of appellate authority. The said authority shall
rehear the parties on appeal and pass a reasoned order in accordance
with law expeditiously preferably within thirty days.
The petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on
the merits of the case.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Jasleen
Digitally signed by
JASLEEN SINGH SALUJA
Date: 2021.06.15
16:47:17 +05'30'
