Madhya Pradesh High Court

Arun Mehta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 March, 2025

Author: Vishal Mishra

Bench: Vishal Mishra

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:11801




                                                                 1                                  WP-17018-2012
                                IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT JABALPUR
                                                           BEFORE
                                             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                                    ON THE 10th OF MARCH, 2025
                                                  WRIT PETITION No. 17018 of 2012
                                                      ARUN MEHTA
                                                         Versus
                                        THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                Shri Manoj Sanghi - Advocate for petitioner.
                                Shri Mohan Sausarkar - Government Advocate for respondents/State.

                                                                     ORDER

This petition was filed in the year 2012 but no reply has been filed by the State authorities in the matter till date.

2. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant any further time to the State counsel to file reply in the matter.

3. Counsel appearing for the State further submits that he is ready for arguments in the matter.

4. The matter is taken up for consideration.

5. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 09.11.2010 (Annexure P/5) whereby punishment of reduction in one rank has been imposed upon the petitioner and order dated 13.01.2012 (Annexure P/7) whereby the appellate authority has affirmed the order dated 09.11.2010.

6. However, after going through the records it is seen that the appeal preferred by the petitioner is Annexure P/6 wherein several grounds have been taken by the petitioner in support of his case. However, the appellate

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:11801

2 WP-17018-2012 order dated 13.01.2012 Annexure P/7 reflects as under-

" करण का िनयम के पर े य म पर ण कया गया तद परा त ी मेहता को सम म सुनवाई का अवसर दे ते हुए दनांक-15.11.2011 को उ ह सम म सुना गया। ी मेहता िल खत एवं भ म उ ह त य को तुत कया गया जसे वे पूव म जॉच के दौरान िल खत प से तुत कर चुके है अपील म कोई ऐसा नवीन त य तुत नह ं कया गया जससे यह प हो सके क कोई याय वफल हुआ हो अथवा जसे वभागीय जाँच म सुना नह गया हो। अतः उ त य के आधार पर एवं करण पर पूण वचारोपरा त ी मेहता का अपील िनर त करते हुए अपीलाधीन संभागीय संयु संचालक जबलपुर का आदे श दनांक-09.11.2010 को यथावत मा य करते हुए अपीलीय कायवाह समा क जाती है ।"

7. Virtually there is no consideration of the grounds taken by the petitioner in appeal. It merely reflects that no new grounds are taken by the petitioner in the appeal. The Appellate Court being the last Court to

appreciate the facts and evidence available on record. In the present case the Director, Public Instructions has not taken note of the record and gone into the evidence and record findings with respect that why the judgment of punishment should be affirmed.

8. Counsel appearing for the State fairly submits that there are no reasons assigned by the Appellate Authority. However, he has made an attempt to justify the order passed by the Appellate Authority.

9. After taking note of the fact that no reasons are assigned by the Appellate Authority the order dated 13.01.2012 (Annexure P/7) becomes unsustainable.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. vs Masood Ahmed Khan reported in 2010 0 Supreme (SC) 826 : (2010) 9 SCC 496 have taken note of the fact that the quasi judicial authorities are

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:11801

3 WP-17018-2012 required to assign reasons while passing the order. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is 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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:11801

4 WP-17018-2012 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"

11. If the aforesaid principle is applied to the present case the Appellate

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:11801

5 WP-17018-2012 Authority has not assigned any reasons and not re-appreciated the evidence to counter the grounds taken by the petitioner in appeal filed before him.

12. Under these circumstances, the order dated 13.01.2025 (Annexure P/7) is unsustainable, it is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority i.e. Director, Public Instructions to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioner and take a final decision in the matter within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is expected that the Appellate Authority will follow the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates (supra).