M/S Radhika Sales Proprietorship ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 9020 MP

                                  1
 IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                       ON THE 19 th OF JUNE, 2023
                    WRIT PETITION No. 3560 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
M/S RADHIKA SALES PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM
THROUGH NARMADESHWAR SHARMA S/O SHRI
HARISHANKAR SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS MAYA COMPLEX ISHAGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                               .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY SHARMA - ADVOCATE )

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

2.    DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER/REGISTRATION
      AUTHORITY          ASHOKNAGAR DISTRICT
      ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                            .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SOHIT MISHRA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

      This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                   ORDER

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 23.1.2023, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for issuance of Trade Certificate/Renewal of the certificate has been rejected without adhering to the Rule 35 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.

It has been argued by counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 23.1.2023 has been passed without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after filing of the application by the petitioner for issuance of trade certificate/renewal of the trade certificate no date was fixed neither opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that bare reading of the order dated 23.1.2023, it would be evident that its an unreasoned/non-speaking order and without taking note of the contents of the application filed by the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed, therefore, it is against the principle of natural justice. On the basis of aforesaid, he prayed for setting aside the order impugned and remanding the

matter back to the District Transport Officer/Registration Authority Ashoknagar to decide afresh as expeditiously as possible within a time bound frame. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Ors. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain principles with regard to necessity of passing the reasoned/speaking order, which reads 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".

Per contra, learned Government Advocate submits that the order impugned suffers from no perversity and should not be interfered with.

After hearing counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, it is evident that the order dated 23.1.2023 is a non speaking order as it does not assign any reason in support of its conclusion. It is a settled principle of law that reasons in support of decision must be cogent, clear and succinct since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making and is virtually a part of 'Due Process', therefore, in light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates (Supra), the order dated 23.1.2023 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the District Transport Officer/Registration Authority Ashoknagar to decide afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Let the said exercise be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observations, present petition is disposed off.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Pawar

ASHISH Digitally signed by ASHISH PAWAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=022bf22fa73f89c6f6d933de1146a290a49b3c9 4df18221974589b5a02e0fc6b,

PAWAR pseudonym=FF3392C76BA2BA90DA179B68ABDF3570 8A13E2D2, serialNumber=45B88E29CF4FECAAA753C8CA8740AD0 DA9C3E498ADE24A066F820E24846008AE, cn=ASHISH PAWAR Date: 2023.06.21 11:03:41 +05'30'