Vinod Raghunath Gedam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 12744 MP

                                                            1
                           IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                               ON THE 8 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 4338 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          VINOD RAGHUNATH GEDAM, S/O LATE SHRI
                          RAGHUNATH GEDAM, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, R/O
                          HOUSE NO. 26, PHASE-II, SHARDA NAGAR BERASIYA
                          ROAD, BHOPAL, (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI AYUR JAIN - ADVOCATE )

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
                                FOOD   CIVIL SUPPLIES AND    CONSUMER
                                PROTECTION, MANTRLAYA, VALABH BHAWAN,
                                BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    BOARD OF DIRECTORS THROUGH CHAIRMAN
                                MADHYA    PRADESH   WAREHOUSING    AND
                                LOGISTIC     CORPORATION, MAIN   OFFICE
                                COMPLEX, BLOCK-A. GAUTAM NAGAR, BHOPAL,
                                (MADHYA PRADESH).

                          3.    MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRDESH
                                WAREHOUSING AND LOGISTIC CORPORATION,
                                MAIN OFFICE COMPLEX, BLOCK-A, GAUTAM
                                NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI AJAY SHUKLA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
                          (BY SHRI PRAVEEN DUBEY - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

                                T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                          following:
                                                             ORDER

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard Signature Not Verified Signed by: BASANT KUMAR SHRIVAS Signing time: 8/9/2023 2:29:41 PM

heard finally.

At the outset, Shri Ayur Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 7th October 2022 (Appellate Order) (Annexure P-3) is liable to be interfered with for the singular reason that the grounds taken in the appeal memo have not been considered and by a cryptic and non- speaking order, the appellate authority has rejected the appeal. Thus, this order may be set aside and matter may be remitted back to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

Shri Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has supported the impugned order dated 7th October 2022.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties on this aspect. I find substantial force in the argument of the petitioner that impugned order does not contain any reason as to why the grounds taken in the appeal memo did not suit the appellate authority. Reasons are held to be heart beat of conclusion. In absence of reasons such order can not sustain judicial scrutiny.

The Apex Court in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another vs.

Masood Ahmed Khan and others-(2010) 9 SCC 496 has emphasized the need of assigning reasons in administrative, quasi judicial and judicial proceedings. 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 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.

Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any Signature Not Verified Signed by: BASANT KUMAR SHRIVAS Signing time: 8/9/2023 2:29:41 PM

possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

e . Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the d ec is io n 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 jus tic e 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 l a w 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. & Anr vs Masood Ahmed Khan & 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 o f law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process"."

Signature Not Verified Signed by: BASANT KUMAR SHRIVAS Signing time: 8/9/2023 2:29:41 PM

The impugned order runs contrary to the law laid down in Kranti Associates (supra). Resultantly, the appellate order dated 7th October 2022 is set aside. The matter is restored in the file of appellate authority with the direction that the appellate authority shall decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law within 30 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

The petition is disposed of.

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE bks

Signature Not Verified Signed by: BASANT KUMAR SHRIVAS Signing time: 8/9/2023 2:29:41 PM