Bhupendra Singh Bhati vs Special Police Establishme ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6294 MP

1      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
                     MCRC No.47557/2021
              Bhupendra Singh Bhati Vs. State of MP

Indore: Dated:-01/10/2021:-

      Shri Rajendra Kumar Mishra with Shri Palash Choudhary,
learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Raghvendra Singh Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the
respondent/SPE.
      With the consent, finally heard.
                                ORDER

This is second visit of the applicant to this Court against the sanction of prosecution issued by Managing Director of Anusuchit Jati Vitta Vikas Nigam.

2) The Competent Authority by earlier order dt. 24.11.2016 opined that no case is made out for grant of sanction. Thereafter, by order dated 18/07/2019, sanction was granted. This subsequent order granting sanction was assailed by filing an application before the Court below which was not properly decided and Court below rejected the same by order dated 28/02/2020. This order was called in question in the first round before this Court in MCRC No.12760/2020 which was decided on 12/02/2021 (Annexure P/10). This Court set aside the said order dated 28/02/2020 and directed the Court below to take a fresh decision on Annexure A/5. In turn, the Court below has considered Annexure A/5 and passed the impugned order dated 14.09.2021 (Annexure P/11).

3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that indisputably, the subsequent sanction order was basesd on the same material. The subsequent sanction order could not have been passed in view of various judgments of Supreme Court cited by the applicant before the Court below. The Court below although mentioned the judgments so cited before it, did not deal with any of the said judgments. The application was dismissed on the basis of a recent Division Bench 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE MCRC No.47557/2021 Bhupendra Singh Bhati Vs. State of MP

judgment of this Court in Sabit Khan vs. State of MP (WP No.7818/2021). It is submitted that the Court below should have assigned some reasons as to why the judgments cited by the applicants did not suit the Court below and were not treated to be on the point and as to why the judgment on which reliance is placed in the operative para squarely covers the case.

4) Shri Raghuwansi, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the conclusion drawn by Court below is absolutely correct. The Court below has not committed any error in placing reliance on the recent Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sabit Khan (supra). Shri Raghuwanshi submits that so far reasons for issuing the subsequent sanction order is concerned, his argument is based on the reasons mentioned in the reply to Annexure A/5.

5) No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.

6) We have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

7) Indisputably, this is second visit of applicant to this Court on the same issue. This Court in the previous round directed the Court below to pass a fresh order after considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties on the pending application Annexure A/5.

8) The impugned order of the Court below shows that citation of all the judgments cited by the applicant are reproduced in the body of impugned order. Thereafter, Court below directly jumped to a conclusion based on a recent judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sabit Khan (supra).

9) We find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant that the minimum expectation from the Court below was to deal with the judgments cited by the applicant and assign reason as to why one judgment has a precedential value over the other judgment cited by the respondent. This is a legitimate expectation of a litigant from a Court of law that it will assign some reason on which its 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE MCRC No.47557/2021 Bhupendra Singh Bhati Vs. State of MP

judgment/conclusion is based. Reasons are held to be heart beat of the conclusion. In absence of reasons, conclusion cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. 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 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.

4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE MCRC No.47557/2021 Bhupendra Singh Bhati Vs. State of MP

(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- 7] .)

(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)

10) It is apparent from the order of the Court below that applicant cited seven judgments of Supreme Court and two orders of this Court before the Court below in support of his contention. Certain judgments of Supreme Court were cited to contend that after declining sanction by passing a specific order, the sanction can be granted on limited grounds. Such grounds or ingredients on which sanction can be granted, were not available in the present case. The Court below has not assigned a single reason as to why judgments 5 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE MCRC No.47557/2021 Bhupendra Singh Bhati Vs. State of MP

of Supreme Court and this Court cited by the applicant cannot be pressed into service. The Court below relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sabit Khan (supra). There is no finding that in Sabit Khan (supra) all the judgments cited by the applicant have been considered. We wonder how Court can base its order on a High Court judgment without considering the judgments of Supreme Court cited before it. We record it with pain that the Court below has miserably failed to consider the judgments of Supreme Court cited before it and based its conclusion on a judgment of this Court. This practice is unknown to law and deserves to be deprecated. This is the minimum expectation from a Court that it will meet the points raised by the parties, discuss about applicability of decision by assigning adequate reasons. If order of Court does not contain any reason, there is no reason to believe that it is an order of a 'Court'. We hope that the Court below will minutely go through our observations made hereinabove and the principle laid down by Supreme Court in Kranti Associates (supra).

11) In view of foregoing analysis, the impugned order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 14.09.2021 (Annexure-P/11) is set aside. The Court below shall hear the parties afresh and pass a fresh order in accordance with law before proceeding further.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

M.Cr.C. is allowed to the extent indicated above.

            (SUJOY PAUL)                    (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
              JUDGE                                 JUDGE
soumya
           Digitally signed by
           SOUMYA RANJAN
           DALAI
           Date: 2021.10.01
           16:38:59 +05'30'