Mahesh Kumar Mundra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6871 MP

                                                                      1
                                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                            AT JABALPUR
                                                                    BEFORE
                                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                                              ON THE 7th OF MAY, 2022

                                                      WRIT PETITION No. 10405 of 2022

                                          Between:-
                                          MAHESH KUMAR MUNDRA S/O SHRI BABULAL
                                          MUNDRA , AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                          BUSINESS NAJAR GANJ, AASHTA, TAHSIL
                                          AASHTA, DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                  .....PETITIONER
                                          (BY SHRI AVINASH ZARGAR, ADVOCATE)

                                          AND

                                 1.       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                          PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT     OF
                                          REVENUE VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                          PRADESH)

                                 2.       COLLECTOR, SEHOR E DISTRICT SEHORE (M.P.)
                                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                 3.       ADDITIONAL     COLLECTOR, S E H O R E DISTRICT
                                          SEHORE (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                 4.       SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER(REVENUE) SEHORE
                                          AASHTA , DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                 5.       TEHSILDAR AASHTA AASHTA , DISTRICT SEHORE
                                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                               .....RESPONDENTS
                                          (BY SHRI G.P. SINGH, GOVT. ADVOCATE )

                                       T h is petition coming on for direction this day, the court passed the
                                 following:
                                                                       ORDER

Challenge is being made to the order dated 18.4.2022, 16.3.2022 and also 13.1.2022 passed by the respondent authorities whereby the petitioner has been declared as encroachers in the property in question. On appeal being made to the S.D.O. the same has also been rejected vide order dated 16.3.2022 and further revision preferred before the Additional Collector which has also been rejected on 18.4.2022. On appeal being preferred before the S.D.O. the order has been passed Signature Not Verified

in a single line without considering the ground which have been raised in the SAN

Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.05.07 14:59:49 IST appeal. Further revisional order also reflects the same.

It is argued that there is no consideration of the ground which have been raised in the appeal, either by the appellate authorities or by the revisional authorities, the same reflects non-application of mind and is against the guidelines which have been issued by the 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; prays for setting aside the order and remanding back the matter before the Sub Divisional Officer for reconsideration of the appeal filed by the petitioner.

Counsel for the State has although tried to justify the order passed by the appellate authorities as well as the revisional authority but fairly accepted that it is a non-speaking order and does reflects any application of mind and submits that the matter should have been considered by S.D.O. in detailed and a detailed and reasoned order should have been passed.

The 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 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 dec is ion maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding

Signature Not Verified extraneous considerations.

SAN

Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN ( f ) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.05.07 14:59:49 IST

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 (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).

(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the Signature Not Verified SAN broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.05.07 14:59:49 IST

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"."

In such circumstances the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 16.3.2022 as well as the order passed by the Additional Commissioner on 18.4.2022 are hereby quashed.

Matter is relegated back to the Sub Divisional Officer for reconsideration of the appeal which has been filed by the petitioner. It is expected that a reasoned and a speaking order be passed by the Sub Divisional Officer after giving audience to the petitioner.

It is directed that Sub Divisional Officer to decide the appeal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and till the appeal is decided no coercive action be taken against the petitioner With the aforesaid observations, petition stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE irfan

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.05.07 14:59:49 IST