Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lakshmi Prasad Tiwari vs Lakhan Tiwari on 31 October, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
ON THE 31 st OF OCTOBER, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 5268 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. LAKSHMI PRASAD TIWARI S/O LATE GAYA
PRASAD TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE BAAKI, THANA SHAHPURA, TEHSIL
SHAHPURA, DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SANTOSH TIWARI S/O LATE GAYA PRASAD
TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
BAAKI, THANA SHAHPURA, TEHSIL SHAHPURA,
DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. OMKAR PRASAD TIWARI S/O LATE GAYA PRASAD
TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
BAAKI, THANA SHAHPURA, TEHSIL SHAHPURA,
DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI JAIDEEP SIRPURKAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. LAKHAN TIWARI S/O RAMADHAR TIWARI, AGED
ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BAAKI, THANA
SHAHPURA, TEHSIL SHAHPURA, DISTRICT
DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ANJALI TIWARI D/O LATE BHARAT TIWARI,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BAAKI,
THANA SHAHPURA, TEHSIL SHAHPURA,
DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ANURAG TIWARI S/O LATE BHARAT TIWARI,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BAAKI,
THANA SHAHPURA, TEHSIL SHAHPURA,
DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. ABHISHEK TIWARI S/O LATE BHARAT TIWARI,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BAAKI,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 11/1/2023
5:37:15 PM
2
THANA SHAHPURA, TEHSIL SHAHPURA,
DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. RAJENDRA TIWARI S/O LATE RAMADHAR
TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
BAAKI, THANA SHAHPURA, TEHSIL SHAHPURA,
DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. NARESH TIWARI S/O LATE RAMADHAR TIWARI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BAAKI,
THANA SHAHPURA, TEHSIL SHAHPURA,
DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH THE
COLLECTOR, DINDORI DISTRICT DINDORI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PARIMAL CHATURVEDI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.
1 TO 6.
MS. SHIKHA SHARMA - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT NO.7 / STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
With the consent finally heard.
2 . This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution takes
exception to order dated 18.08.2023 whereby application preferred by
petitioners / defendants under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is rejected by the Court
below.
3 . Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that impugned order is bad in law because the Court below has not assigned
any reason as to why the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was not liable
to be allowed. The Court only reached to a conclusion without assigning any
reason. By placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Amit Kumar
Shaw Vs. Farida Khatoon, (2005) 11 SCC 403 Shri Sirpurkar submits the
said application at appellate stage is also tenable.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 11/1/2023
5:37:15 PM
4. Shri Parimal Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1
to 6 , opposed the prayer and supported the impugned order.
5. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
6. The Court below while passing the impugned order opined that at
appellate stage, it is not justifiable to entertain the application under Order 1
Rule 10 C.P.C. The Court below has not assigned any reason whatsoever as to
why at appellate stage such permission cannot be granted. The reasons are held
to be heart beat of conclusions. It is minimum expectation from a judicial
forum to assign reasons. In absence of reasons, conclusion cannot sustain
judicial scrutiny.
7. The Apex Court in the case of M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd and
another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others (2010) 9 SCC 496
emphasized the need of assigning reasons in administrative, quasi-judicial and
judicial function/order. 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
i n 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 11/1/2023
5:37:15 PM
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 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 of
law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence
and is virtually a part of "Due Process".
(Emphasis supplied)
8. In the impugned order since no reasons are assigned, it cannot sustain
judicial scrutiny. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 18.08.2023 is set aside.
The Court below is directed to rehear the parties on the pending application
under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The petitioner may rely upon the above judgment
before the Court below. The Court below shall pass a fresh order in
accordance with law expeditiously.
9. Petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 11/1/2023
5:37:15 PM
of the case.
(SUJOY PAUL)
JUDGE
sarathe
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 11/1/2023
5:37:15 PM
