Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dilshaad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 April, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT PETITION No. 2082 of 2014
DILSHAAD
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Naval Kishore Chaturvedi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Deepak Khot - Ga appearing on behalf of State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on 08/04/2025
Delivered on 17/04/2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
" It is humbly prayed that writ petition may
kindly be allowed and the orders impugned
Annexure P/1, P/2 and P/3 may kindly be set
aside and order dated 10.01.2002 passed by Naib
Tehsildar, Circle Manpur, Tehsil and District
Sheopur may kindly be restored. Any other writ,
order and direction as this Hon'ble Court may
deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case be granted. Cost be awarded."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from
bare perusal of the impugned order dated 10.01.2014, it would be
evident that it's a non-speaking order and had been passed
without applying its mind to the entire facts and circumstances, or
had been passed without recording a valid and justifiable reason
or on the basis of any plausible ground in support of its
conclusion, so also as under what provisions of the law, it has
been passed is unknown, therefore, it deserves to be quashed.
3. Relying 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 Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC
496, it was contended that the reasons are the heartbeat of the
order and in absence thereof, the order cannot be said to be alive.
It was thus prayed that the impugned order herein be set aside and
the matter may be remitted back to the Collector for deciding the
same by passing reasoned and speaking order in accordance with
law.
4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents had
opposed the prayer so made by counsel for the petitioner and had
prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It is settled law that the authority must apply its mind to the
entire facts and circumstances and record valid and justifiable
reasons or grounds in support of its conclusion. On perusal of the
impugned order, it does not appear to be a speaking one.
7. It is a settled position of law that when a discretion is
vested in an authority to exercise a particular power, the same is
required to be exercised with due diligence, and in reasonable and
rational manner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of
decisions has reiterated time and again the necessity and
importance of giving reasons by the authority in support of its
decision. It has been held that the face of an order passed by a
quasi-judicial authority or even by an administrative authority
affecting the rights of parties must speak. The affected party must
know how his case or defence was considered before passing the
prejudicial order.
8. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Punjab v/s. Bandip Singh and others reported in
(2016) 1 SCC 724 is also relevant to quote. In the said decision it
had been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that every decision
of an administrative or executive nature must be a composite and
self-sustaining one, in that it should contain all the reasons which
prevailed on the official taking the decision to arrive at its
conclusion.
9. In the same judgment in paragraph 7, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court clarifies that the Government does not have carte blanche to
take any decision it chooses to; it cannot take a capricious,
arbitrary or prejudiced decision. Its decision must be informed and
impregnated with reasons. Paragraph 7 of the said decision is
quoted as under:-
"7. The same principle was upheld more recently
in Ram Kishun v. State of U.P. (2012) 11 SCC
511 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 382. However, we must
hasten to clarify that the Government does not
have a carte blanche to take any decision it
chooses to; it cannot take a capricious, arbitrary
or prejudiced decision. Its decision must be
informed and impregnated with reasons. This has
already been discussed threadbare in several
decisions of this Court, including in Sterling
Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd (1993)
1 SCC 445, Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994)
6 SCC 651, Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International
Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617, B.S.N. Joshi &
Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11
SCC 548 and Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa
(2007) 14 SCC 517" 31.
10. Also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v/s Masood Ahmed
Khan (supra) highlights this point. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in paragraph 15 opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi
judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the
rights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the inscrutable
face of a sphinx. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid matter
in para 47 has laid 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 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.
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 dif erent 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"
6. In the light of the above discussion and considering the
judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ms. Kranti
Associates and Others (supra), this Court deems it fit to set aside
the order dated 10.01.2014, (Annexure P/1) passed by the
Revenue Board and remit the matter back to the Board of
Revenue to decide the matter afresh by passing a reasoned and
speaking order in accordance with law after giving proper
opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned within a period of
four weeks from the date of receiving certified copy of this order.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is
disposed of finally.
(Milind Ramesh Phadke)
Judge
chandni/ 17/04/2025
CHAN
DNI
2.5.4.20=4a0af498d89b2d94b
5abcc1b4614d98feabd8b782
28e0ec6eab9a0bd4e622c09,
ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH AT
NARW
GWALIOR,CID - 7022823,
postalCode=474001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=8c306c586aaa
43d19976f07886865f6fac4a24
ARIYA
6eee6bccd256acdfce3dcf944f
, cn=CHANDNI NARWARIYA
Date: 2025.04.17 18:27:08
+05'30'
