Shivram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3837 MP

     THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
              W.P.No.16749 of 2021
                   (Shivram vs. State of M.P. and others)




Jabalpur, Dated : 21.03.2022


        Shri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.

        Shri Alok Agnihotri, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for
the respondents/State.

Shri Pravesh Naveria, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

Present petition has been filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 04.08.2021 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Balaghat in Appeal No.71/20-21, whereby, delay of 19 years in filing an appeal has been condoned by a non-speaking order.

It is pointed out that mutation proceedings took place on 15.06.2002 and the aforesaid order was never put to challenge at any point of time. An appeal was filed under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code on 03.03.2021 challenging the order dated 15.06.2002 accompanying with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. It is submitted that a detailed reply to the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed denying all the averments of the application and it was contended that the matter was well within the knowledge of the private respondent, but despite the same, he has not chosen to assail the order of mutation passed in the year 2002. He has drawn attention of this Court to several order sheets of the appellate Court; specially the order dated THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.16749 of 2021 (Shivram vs. State of M.P. and others)

04.08.2021 wherein it is observed as under:

"4/8/2021:

izdj.k is'kA mHk;i{k mi0A mHk;i{kksa }kjk izLrqr /kkjk 5 ifjlheu vf/k0 ds varxZr rdZ o tokc dk voyksdu fd;kA Lkw{e voyksdu i'pkr euu fd;k o ik;k fd vihy izLrqr djus esa gqvk foyac 'keuh; gSA vr% xq.k&nks"k ds vk/kkj ij vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA xSj vihykFkhZ vihy dk tokc ysdj izLrqr gksA CF - 11.08.2021."

It is submitted that no reasons have been assigned by learned Sub Divisional Officer for condoning the delay of 19 years despite the fact that there is specific denial on the part of the petitioner. It is submitted that it was a non-speaking order. Placing reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Masood Ahmed, reported in 2010 9 SCC 496, he submits that matter may be reconsidered by learned Sub Divisional Officer on the application for condonation of delay. It is pointed out that learned Sub Divisional Officer has further observed that "vr% xq.k nks"k ds vk/kkj ij vihy zLohdkj dh tkrh gSA " But the fact remains that the appeal is still pending consideration.

Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that the authorities have only considered the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and finding the reasons to be THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.16749 of 2021 (Shivram vs. State of M.P. and others)

appropriate condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The order is just and proper and does not call for any interference in the present petition.

Counsel appearing for the State after going through the order sheets of the Court of learned Sub Divisional Officer submits that no reasons are being assigned for condoning the delay of 19 years, therefore, in such circumstances, the matter may be remanded back to the learned Sub Divisional Officer for reconsideration on the question of limitation.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From a perusal of the record, it is undisputed that a mutation took place on 15.06.2002 and the aforesaid order was never put to challenge for a consideration period of 19 years and all of a sudden, an appeal is preferred in the year 2021 alongwith an application for condonation of delay. Notices were issued to the respondents and a reply to the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed and after hearing the parties, the learned Sub Divisional Officer has allowed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoned the delay of 19 years. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 04.08.2021, it is apparently clear that no reasons have been assigned by learned Sub Divisional Officer while allowing the application for condonation of delay. The reasons are the heartbeats of the judgment; therefore, the authorities while passing an order is required to assign reasons THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.16749 of 2021 (Shivram vs. State of M.P. and others)

for the same.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another (supra) has held as under:-

"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.

(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 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.16749 of 2021 (Shivram vs. State of M.P. and others)

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 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 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.16749 of 2021 (Shivram vs. State of M.P. and others)

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." In such circumstances, the order impugned dated 04.08.2021 being a non-speaking order is hereby quashed. The matter is relegated back to learned Sub Divisional Officer for reconsideration on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and pass a fresh order after providing opportunity of hearing to the rival parties.

With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.

C.C. as per rules.

(Vishal Mishra) Judge

SJ

Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Date: 2022.03.21 18:23:00 +05'30'