Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sitaram vs Sunder Singh on 16 January, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:851
1 WP-40284-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 16th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 40284 of 2024
SITARAM AND OTHERS
Versus
SUNDER SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Saraswat - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri S.S. Kushwah - Government Advocate for respondent No.3/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27.12.2022 passed by
Additional Collector, Morena in Case No.54/2021-22/Revision whereby the
order dated 24.11.2021 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue),
Morena in Case No.138/2021 by which inordinate delay of 17 years 06
months of filing the appeal by the respondents No.1 and 2 before it, has been
condoned by passing following non-speaking order:
" करण तुत।
उभयप अिभ0 ारा धारा 05 पर कये गये तक पर मनन ्
कया गया। अिभलेखन के अवलोकन से अपीला ट का धारा 05 का
आवेदन स ावना पर आधा रत होने से वीकार कया जाता है ।
करण अंितम तक हे तु िनयत कया जाता है ।
17/12/2021"
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:851
2 WP-40284-2024
was affirmed by observing as under:
3- उभयप अिभभाषक के तक पर मनन कया एवं
िनगरानी आवेदन के साथ तुत द तावेज तथा अधीन थ
यायालय के अिभलेख का प रिशलन कया गया। वचारण
यायालय ारा संपा दत क गई कायवाह य का वशलेषण कया
गया। अनुि वभागीय अिधकार राज व मुरैना ारा अपने
यायालयीन करण मांक 0138ए/2020-21/अपील म पा रत
अ त रम आदे श दनांक 24.11.2021 के ारा धारा-5 अविध वधान
के आवेदन पर विधवत उभयप अिभभाषक के तक वण करने
के उपरा त तुत धारा -5 अविध वधान का आवेदन स ावना पर
आधा रत होने से वीकार करते हुये करण अ तम तक हे तु
िनयत कया गया है , जसम कसी कार क अवै ािनकता
प रल त न होने से उसम कसी कार का ह त ेप कया जाना
उिचत तीत नह ं होता है । अधीन थ यायालय के सम अभी
उभयप को सा य व सुनवाई का समुिचत अवसर ा है ।
4- उपरो ववेचना के आधार पर तुत िनगरानी
आवेदन सारह न होने से िनर त कया जाता है । अनु वभागीय
अिधकार राज व मुरैना के करण मांक 0138ए/2020-
21/अपील म पा रत अ त रम ओदश दनांक 24.11.2021
विधस मत होने से थर रखा जाता है ।
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the order
dated 24.11.2021 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Morena is
a non-speaking order, as it is passed without any reasoning or justification
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:851
3 WP-40284-2024
and this fact has not been considered by the Additional Collector while
passing the impugned order dated 27.12.2022, which is is against the settled
preposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of
Kranti Associates Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and
Ors. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 .
3. It was further submitted that the contentions as raised by the
petitioners in the appeal preferred by respondents No.1 and 2 before Sub-
Divisional Officer (Revenue), Morena were not at all considered and in a
very slip short manner, the order has been passed which is against the law, as
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 present petition be
allowed and the impugned orders dated 27.12.2022 and 24.11.2021 be set
aside and the matter be relegated back to the Sub-Divisional Officer
(Revenue), Morena for deciding the matter on merits by way of reasoned and
speaking order in accordance with law.
4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the State has opposed
the prayer so made by counsel for the petitioner and had prayed for dismissal
of the present petition.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the orders
impugned herein, this Court finds strength in the arguments as advanced by
counsel for the petitioners that the order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the
Appellate Authority/the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Morena is
without any reasoning, which in the light of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the matter of Kranti Associates Private Limited and Anr. ( supra) is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:851
4 WP-40284-2024
not sustainable. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid matter 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:851
5 WP-40284-2024
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:851
6 WP-40284-2024
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 27.12.2022 and
24.11.2021 passed by the Additional Collector and the SDO respectively and
remit the matter back to the Appellate Authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer
(Revenue), Morena to decide the matter afresh by passing a reasoned and
speaking order in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:851
7 WP-40284-2024
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
pwn*
