Orissa High Court
Ugrasena Jena vs Bishnupriya Behera & on 24 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No.259 of 2017
Ugrasena Jena .... Petitioner
Mr. L.Sarangi,
Advocate
-versus-
Bishnupriya Behera & .... Opp. Parties
another
Mr.P.Beura,
Advocate.
CORAM:
JUSTICE BISWAJIT MOHANTY
ORDER
Order No.
24.11.2021
07. This matter is taken up through video conferencing
mode.
Heard Mr.L.Sarangi, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.P.Beura, learned counsel for the opposite
parties.
According to Mr.Sarangi though the petitioner who
happens to be sole opposite party in C.R.P. No. 49 of 2012
pending before the learned Judge, Family Court,
Bhubaneswar filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
vide Annexure-3 on 7.9.2017 praying to permit him to
examine Jyotsnarani Jena as a witness however such
petition was rejected on 8.9.2017 without assigning any
reason. According to him this being a non-speaking order
should be set aside.
Mr. Beura submits that the petitioner is trying to
// 2 //
delay an year old matter by filing such petition as a result,
the opposite party No.1 is suffering a lot financially.
A perusal of order dated 8.9.2017 shows it to be a
non-speaking order.
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
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. (emphasis supplied)
(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
// 3 //
reason is the soul of justice. (emphasis supplied)
(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. (emphasis supplied)
(j). Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial
accountability and transparency. (emphasis supplied)
(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
// 4 //
decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due
process"".
Thus, it is well settled that assigning reasons while
passing of a judicial order is indispensable component of a
decision making process by judicial bodies.
Since no reason whatsoever has been assigned in the
impugned order while rejecting the petition under
Annexure-3, this Court is of the opinion that learned Court
below has acted with material irregularity while passing the
said order. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation in
setting aside the order dated 8.9.2017 passed in C.R.P. No.
49 of 2012 and accordingly the same is set aside subject to
payment of Rs.2000/- within a week to the opposite party
No.1 in the form of account payee bank draft drawn in her
favour. On being satisfied about such payment, the learned
Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar is directed to decide
the above noted petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C filed
under Annexure-3 afresh in accordance with law within a
period of two weeks from the date of payment to the
opposite party No.1. Accordingly, the revision is allowed
with the above noted terms and conditions.
Interim order passed on 16.10.2017 stands vacated.
Kishore ( Biswajit Mohanty)
Judge
