Madhya Pradesh High Court
Radheshyam Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 June, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12356
1 WP-19112-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 20 th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 19112 of 2025
RADHESHYAM SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Jitesh Sharma -GA appearing on behalf of State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary action of the
respondent no.2/Collector who has passed a cryptic order and despite the order
passed by the SDO, the application under Section 115 of MPLRC of the petitioner
was rejected without assigning any reason.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from bare perusal of
the impugned order dated 17.04.2025, 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
o f 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12356
2 WP-19112-2025
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12356
3 WP-19112-2025
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12356
4 WP-19112-2025
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".
9. 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 17.04.2025, (Annexure P/1) passed
by the Collector and remit the matter back to the Collector 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.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed of
finally.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
Chandni
