Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Rai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 January, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP No. 940 of 2022
(RAJENDRA RAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
WP No. 945 of 2022
(RAJENDRA RAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 31-01-2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Siddharth Gulati, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Akshay Pawar, learned P.L. for respondents/State.
Regard being had to the similitude of the matters, on the joint request
of the parties, these matters were finally heard.
The bone of contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the
impugned order dated 13/07/2021 affirmed by Appellate Authority on
29/11/2021 is bad-in-law for the simple reason that the competent
authority/Sub Division Officer (Revenue) in the impugned order dated
13/07/2021 has mentioned the stand of the department and of the present
petitioner but did not assign a single reason as to why defence taken by the
petitioner did not suit him. In absence of reasons, the said orders need to be
interfered with. Same is the position with the appellate order. Apart from this,
Shri Gulatee, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the nature of
objection raised by the petitioners cannot be gone into by the Sub Divisional
Officer and petitioners intend to address the said authority on this aspect as
well.
Shri Akshay Pawar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State,
opposed the prayer and supported the impugned orders.
The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
record.
A plain reading of the impugned order dated 13/07/2021 leaves no
room for any doubt that contention of Shri Gulatee, learned counsel for the
petitioners has substantial force. The impugned order contains mainly 5
paragraphs. Up to paragraph 3rd of the impugned order, the learned Sub
Division Officer mentioned the case of the department and the factual basis
on which case of present petitioners is founded upon. On small paragraph
4th, he has directly jumped to a conclusion that the case of the department
has substance whereas petitioner has no right/title whatsoever on the
property. No reasons are assigned as to why factual backdrop mentioned in
petitioners' defence did not inspire confidence. In other words, without
assigning a single reason, the learned Sub Divisional Officer reached to a
conclusion.
The reasons are held to be heart beat of conclusions. In absence of
reasons, conclusion cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. In M/s Kranti
Association Pvt. Ltd. And another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others,
reported in 2010 (9) SCC 496, the Apex Court emphasized the need of
assigning reasons in quasi-judicial administration and judicial functioning. The
relevant portion reads as under:
"47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court
holds:
"a. In India the judicial trend has always been to
record reasons, even i n 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 b y 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
M/S Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr vs Masood
Ahmed Khan and Ors on 8 September, 2010 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 Harward Law Review 731-737).
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".
(Emphasis supplied)
In view of the aforesaid analysis, the impugned orders dated
13/07/2021 and consequential appellate order dated 29/11/2021 and impugned
orders in connected matter are set aside. The matters are restored in the file of
Sub Division Officer (Revenue) who shall hear the parties again and decide
the matter in accordance with law. Parties shall be at liberty to take all the
relevant grounds during the course of hearing.
With the aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, petitions are disposed of.
(SUJOY PAUL) (ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
manju
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY
Date: 2022.02.01 17:03:10 IST
