Premwati College Of Nursing ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 963 MP

                                        1


                                    W.P. No.26667 of 2021 and W.P. No.14684 of 2021

                      The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

                W.P. No.26667 of 2021 and W.P. No.14684 of 2021
                 (Premvati College of Nursing Vs State of M.P.)

Jabalpur, Dated 20.01.2022

        Shri Rohit Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.
        Shri Tabrez Sheikh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order.

The main ground of challenge to the impugned orders dated 16.8.2021, (Ann.P-13) and dated 23.11.2021, (Ann. P-17) before this court is based on the propriety of decision making process.

Draped in brevity, the relevant facts for adjudication of this matter are that the petitioner- college which was enjoying the recognition was put to a show cause notice on 15.7.2021, (Ann. P-9). The petitioner, in turn filed its detailed reply, dated 19.7.2021. The respondents, by the impugned order dated 16.8.2021 cancelled the recognition for the sessions 2020-2021 for GNM Course. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a representation as per Rule 8 of the Recognition Rules before the Council. The said representation running in five pages and preferred on 28.8.2021, (Ann. P-16) was rejected by the impugned order dated 23.11.2021, (Ann. P-

17).

Criticizing these orders, Shri Rohit Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in both the orders, the respondents have not assigned a single reason as to why the reply/representation preferred by them did not suit the Council. In absence of any reason, the impugned order runs contrary to the principles of natural justice and must be termed as arbitrary in nature. In addition, it is submitted that Rule 8 of the Recognition Rules, in no uncertain terms makes it clear that the representation must be decided by affording an opportunity of hearing. The rejection order of representation dated 23.11.2021, (Ann. P-17) is passed without affording any opportunity of hearing. For these twin reasons, both the orders needs to be interfered with.

W.P. No.26667 of 2021 and W.P. No.14684 of 2021

Shri Tabrez Sheikh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has supported both the orders and urged that although orders aforesaid do not contain any reason, the reason can be gathered from the reply filed by the Council. He submits that in view of the reply filed by the Council, no case is made out for interference.

No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

A conjoint reading of the show cause dated 13.7.2021, (Ann. P-9) and its reply (Ann. P-10) leaves no room for any doubt that the petitioner has given certain reasons as to why his case does not fall within the ambit of Rule 6 (5) of the Recognition Rules. The rejection order dated 16.8.2021 shows that the respondents have mentioned about the date and details of the said show cause notice and factum of receiving the reply of the petitioner. Thereafter, by quoting the rule, the recognition has been cancelled. There is no iota of reason assigned in the impugned order as to why the defence taken by the petitioner in the reply was not found to be trustworthy to the Council.

Another rejection order dated 23.11.2021 suffers from same infirmity. As noticed, representation of petitioner dated 28.8.2021 is running in five pages but the same was rejected by a single stroke of pen without assigning a single reason. Thus, the singular question before us is whether such rejection orders can sustain judicial scrutiny.

We will be failing in our duty if we would not consider the argument of Shri Tabrez Sheikh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 based on the return filed.

By filing return, an attempt is being made to give life to the rejection orders dated 16.8.2021, (Ann.P-13) and another rejection order dated 23.11.2021, (Ann. P-17).

This point is no more res integra. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others reported in 1978 (1) SCC 405 opined that when validity of an order of the statutory authority is called in question, the validity of order needs to be examined on the basis

W.P. No.26667 of 2021 and W.P. No.14684 of 2021

of grounds mentioned therein. The orders cannot be validated on the basis of counter affidavit or supplementary counter affidavit. The relevant portion of this judgment reads as under :-

"Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself."

Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.

(Emphasis supplied) In view of this binding authority of the Constitution Bench, we have no doubt that the averments of return or additional return etc. cannot form basis for validating orders, which are otherwise bad in law.

We call it bad in law for the simple reason that both the orders run contrary to the principles of natural justice. In Kranti Associates Ltd. Vs. Masood Ahmed, reported in 2010 (9) SCC 496, the Apex Court poignantly held that reasons are heart beats 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 orders in the following words :-

47. 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.

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.

W.P. No.26667 of 2021 and W.P. No.14684 of 2021

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 Judicial Candor.

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 Torjia Vs. Spain EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs.

W.P. No.26667 of 2021 and W.P. No.14684 of 2021

University of Oxford, 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 principles laid down in Kranti Associates Ltd. Vs. Masood Ahmed, (supra) both the rejection orders dated 16.8.2021 (Ann. P-13) and 23.11.2021, (Ann. P-17) cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. The principles of natural justice, can not be reduced as an empty public relation activity. If the petitioner was put to show cause notice and he has filed reply or representation, the Council was under an obligation to deal with each of the points raised by the petitioner while the taking the decision. The order dated 23.11.2021 is bad in law for yet another reason. The reason is that it is admittedly passed without affording any opportunity of hearing. Resultantly, both the orders dated 16.8.2021 (Ann. P-13) and 23.11.2021 (Ann P-17) are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Council to take a decision on the show cause notice dated 15.7.2021, (Ann. P-9) by considering the reply of petitioner in accordance with law. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the petition.

Both the writ petition are disposed of.

       (SUJOY PAUL)                                  (ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
         JUDGE                                              JUDGE

       bks



BASANT KUMAR SHRIVAS
2022.01.21 14:40:39 +05'30'