Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 September, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
1 WP-19636-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-19636-2021
(ASHOK YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
1
Jabalpur, Dated : 28-09-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A.P.Singh, learned Dy. Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated
13.08.2021 (Annexure P/3) whereby, the respondent no.5 has been directed
to take over the charge of In-charge Samiti Prabandhak, Sewa Sahkari Samiti
Maryadit, Bakswaha District Chhatarpur.
It is alleged that the petitioner is not eligible to hold the said charge nor
respondent no.3 has any right to issue such an order. It is pointed out that the
order impugned is a non-speaking order without application of mind and not
providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He has drawn attention
of this Court to the impugned order and has argued that the authority in a
single line has rejected the claim of the petitioner, observing as under :-
02-09-2021
izdj.k izLrqrA vihykFkhZ vf/k- Jh
lat; [kjs mi-A
izfr- vihy- Ø-3 dh vksj ls Jh ,o ds ikBd
mi-A mudh vksj ls LFkxu vkosnu dk tcko
izLrqr fd;k x;kA LFku ij rdZizFke fd;s x;sA
izFke LFkxu ij rdZ ekU; ;ksX; u gksus ls LFkxu vkosnu i=
fujLr fd;k x;k tkrk gSA
fjdkMZ ,oa cgl gsrq 07-10-2021 fu;r
Signature Not lgh
SAN
Verified
Digitally signed by
SMT SHALINI
SINGH LANDGE
Date: 2021.09.30
10:38:25 IST
2 WP-19636-2021
It is submitted that the application for interim relief has been rejected by
the impugned order. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and Anr.
vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496
wherein, the guidelines have been framed by the Supreme Court, considering
the fact that the reasons for heart beats of the judgment are not considered
and a non speaking order is unsustainable. It is further observed that even the
authorities are required to observe the reasons, while passing the order. He
has prayed for setting aside the impugned order with the prayer that the matter
be remanded back to the concerning authorities for reconsideration of the
case of the petitioner.
Per contra, State counsel has supported the impugned order and has
submitted that the order is passed by the authorities and the main cases are
still pending for consideration therefore, direction be issued to consider and
decide the pending appeal before the authorities at an early date.
Counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 has also supported the
impugned order and submitted that as the appeal is still pending for
consideration before the respondent authorities therefore, a time bound
direction be issued to consider and decide the pending appeal. As far as the
order impugned is concerned counsel appearing for the State could not
dispute the fact that it is a non speaking order and without application of
mind.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates
(supra) has held as under :-
"œ47. Summarizing 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.
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
SMT SHALINI
SINGH LANDGE
Date: 2021.09.30
10:38:25 IST
3 WP-19636-2021
(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 life blood 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
Signature Not
SAN
Verified Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-
Digitally signed by
SMT SHALINI
SINGH LANDGE
Date: 2021.09.30
10:38:25 IST
4 WP-19636-2021
737).
(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
(1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs.
University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the
Court referred to Article 6 of 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".
The order impugned clearly reflects that it is a single line order and
without application of mind and the authorities have not assigned any reason
for rejection of the application.
In such circumstances, considering the guidelines of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates (supra), order is
unsustainable. The order dated 02.09.2021 rejecting an application for interim
relief is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the authorities/Assistant
Registrar, co-operative society for reconsideration of the application of the
petitioner for grant of interim relief and the fresh order be passed after
providing opportunity of hearing to the rival parties. As the appeal is pending
for consideration before the authorities, it is also expected that the authorities
will expedite the proceedings of the pending appeal and decide the same
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy
of this order.
Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed
of.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Sha
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
SMT SHALINI
SINGH LANDGE
Date: 2021.09.30
10:38:25 IST
