Chitrasen Bhoi vs State Of Odisha & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 12941 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                            W.P.(C) No.39574 of 2021

                 Chitrasen Bhoi                   ....        Petitioner

                                   Mr. D.Mishra,
                                   Advocate

                                       -versus-
                 State of Odisha & others     ....      Opp. Parties
                                 Mr.R.P.Mohapatra,
                                 Advocate.
                                 Mr.B.Routray, learned Senior
                                 Counsel for O.P. No.4

                                    CORAM:
                           JUSTICE BISWAJIT MOHANTY
                                     ORDER

Order No. 17.12.2021

02. 1. This matter is taken up through video conferencing mode.

2. Heard Mr.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.P.Mohapatra, learned Addl. Government Advocate and Mr.B.Routray, learned Senior Counsel for opposite party No.4.

3. According to Mr.Mishra the petitioner is aggrieved by reserving the Office of Chairman, Gudvela Panchayat Samiti in the district of Bolangir in favour of Scheduled Tribe Woman violating the rotation principle though as per draft list, it was only reserved for Scheduled Tribe. On account this the petitioner who belongs to Scheduled Tribe is going to be seriously affected. He further submits that challenging the same, the petitioner has earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 33865 of 2021 and while // 2 //

disposing of the said case on 2.11.2021, this Court has granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Collector, Bolangir (opposite party No.2) by filing a petition highlighting all his grievances. It was made clear in the said order that the Collector, Bolangir should pass a reasoned order on such grievance petition. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the opposite party No.2 by filing a grievance petition. However the same was disposed of on 9.12.2021 under Annexure-12 rejecting his prayer after abruptly coming to a conclusion that the post of Chairman of Gudvela Panchayat Samiti has been rightly reserved for Scheduled Tribe (Woman) category without assigning any reason. Accordingly, he prays the same may be quashed and the matter may be remitted back to the Collector, Bolangir for fresh disposal.

4. Mr.Mohapatra, learned Addl. Government Advocate fairly submits that the impugned order is a non-speaking one and the matter may be remanded for fresh disposal.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the impugned order under Annexure-12, it is clear that the grievance petition of the petitioner has been rejected without giving any reason and without any analysis of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order being a non-speaking order violates principle of natural justice.

6. With regard to giving reasons while passing orders, the Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Limited and Another V. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 at paragraph-47 has laid down as follows:-

"(a). In India the judicial trend has always been to record

// 3 //

reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (emphasis supplied)

(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. (emphasis supplied)

(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 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

// 4 //

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. (emphasis supplied)

(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.

(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 Ruiz Torija V. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 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"."

7. Thus, it is well settled that even the administrative decisions have to be supported by reasons otherwise such decisions will become arbitrary and legally vulnerable. In the present case, reasons are all the more required to be given as a direction to that effect has been given while disposing of earlier W.P.(C) No. 33865 of 2021.

8. Since the impugned order has been passed without

// 5 //

giving any reason, this Court sets aside the impugned order under Annexure-12 and remits the matter back to Collector, Bolangir (opposite party No.2) to decide the grievance petition of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

9. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of.

10. Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application.

Kishore                                          ( Biswajit Mohanty)
                                                       Judge