Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Ravindra Shitole vs Municipal Corporation Gwalior on 30 July, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16037
1 WP-29341-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 30th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 29341 of 2025
SHRI RAVINDRA SHITOLE
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GWALIOR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri N K Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Shri YPS Rathore - Advocate
appeared for the petitioner.
Shri Nakul Khedkar - Advocate for the respondents/Corporation.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
"a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent
Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, to effect mutation of House
No. 10/561, Ward 52, Lashkar, in the names of the petitioner
and respondent no.2.
b). Quash the impugned order dated 14/07/2025
& 16/07/2025 Annexure-P/1 and 04.09.2024 Annexure-P/2,
passed by the Municipal Corporation rejecting the mutation
request of the petitioners.
c. Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble court may
deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted
doing justice in favor of petitioner."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from bare
perusal of the impugned orders dated 14.07.2025 and 16.07.2025, it would
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16037
2 WP-29341-2025
be evident that they are non-speaking orders and had been passed without
applying its mind to the entire facts and circumstances, had been passed
without recording a valid and justifiable reason nor 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.
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.
5. 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.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. 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.
8. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16037
3 WP-29341-2025
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 defense was
considered before passing the prejudicial order.
9. 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 held 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:-
47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16037
4 WP-29341-2025
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".
10. In the light of the above discussion and considering the judgment
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16037
5 WP-29341-2025
rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ms. Kranti Associates and
Others (supra), this Court deems it fit to quash the orders dated 14.07.2025
and 16.07.2025 (Annexure P/1 and P/2) passed by the Additional
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and Property Tax Officer,
Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and remit the matter back to the concerned
authorities to decide the matter afresh, keeping in view the orders Annexures
P/3 to P/8, and pass a detailed, 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.
11. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed of
finally.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
Chandni
