Mohd. Abrar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 304 MP

                                 1
 IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                      ON THE 5 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                     WRIT PETITION No. 16889 of 2021

BETWEEN:-
MOHD. ABRAR S/O ANBAR KHAN, AGED ABOUT 39
YEARS, BUSINEES PROP. MOHD. ABRAR ARMS REPAIR
MADHOGANJ HAAT BHIND DISTT. BHIND (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                             .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ARUN DUDAWAT - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
      SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF hOMES, MANTRALAYA,
      VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DISTT. BHIND (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

                                                           .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VARUN KAUSHIK - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

      Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the

following:
                                  ORDER

Present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dated 19.07.2021 passed by respondent No.1 in F.16-1950/2008/B-1/two rejecting the application for renewal of arms repair license of the petitioner on the ground that the proposal for renewal of arms repair license has been forwarded by respondent no.2 belatedly and not in prescribed format.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason for delay is solely attributable to the respondents and the petitioner cannot be saddled with the penalty of rejection of his renewal of arms repair license. He further submits that the respondent no.1 himself had sought recommendations of respondent no.2 on 09.11.2020 itself, thus, there is an inordinate delay on the part of respondent no.1. Even otherwise, the respondent no.1 has failed to comply with the statutory requirement to take decision before expiry of the license of the petitioner as the petitioner had applied for renewal well within time. Hence, the order impugned being patently illegal and contrary to law, deserves to be quashed.

Learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned order and prays for dismissal of this petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From perusal of impugned order, it is apparent that the order impugned has been passed without considering the fact that there was no mistake on the part of petitioner as he had applied for renewal of license within time and it was responsibility of respondents to pass appropriate orders on the application of the petitioner. Hence, for any delay caused in receiving proposal cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Even the order impugned has been passed without showing any viable reason for rejection of renewal of license which is against settled principles of natural justice as even quasi judicial authority is required to pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The 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:-

"( 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 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 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".

Therefore, in the light of the above discussion and considering the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ms. Kranti Associates and Others (Supra), order dated 19.07.2021 passed by respondent No.1 Annexure

P/1 is hereby quashed. The respondent no.1 is directed to pass fresh order in respect of renewal of arms repair license of petitioner, in accordance with law.

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

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Rks

RAM KUMAR SHARMA 2023.01.05 18:48:44 +05'30'