Patna High Court
The Bihar State Food And Civil Supplies ... vs Most. Shanti Devi on 18 April, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.85 of 2020
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10657 of 2005
======================================================
1. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Sone Bhawan, 5th
Floor, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-1 through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director
2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies
Corporation Ltd., Sone Bhawan, 5th Floor, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-1
3. The Chief of Administration, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies
Corporation Ltd., Sone Bhawan, 5th Floor, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-1
4. The Chief of Storage, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.,
Sone Bhawan, 5th Floor, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-1
5. The Chief of Claims, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.,
Sone Bhawan, 5th Floor, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-1
6. The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.,
Samastipur
7. The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.,
Rohtas at Sasaram
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Most. Shanti Devi wife of Baidyanath Singh resident of village- Barka
Lauhar, P.S.-Barhara, District- Bhojpur
2. The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.,
Dumka
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 18-04-2025
Patna High Court L.P.A No.85 of 2020 dt.18-04-2025
Heard I.A. No. 01 of 2020 for condonation of delay.
There is a delay of about 134 days in filing L.P.A. No. 85 of
2020.
2. For the reasons stated in the application read with
the affidavit, delay of about 134 days in filing L.P.A. No. 85 of
2020, stands condoned.
3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01 of 2020 stands allowed.
4. The appellants have assailed the order of the learned
Single Judge dated 16.08.2019 passed in CWJC No. 10657 of
2005.
5. The learned Single Judge while examining the
disciplinary authority order dated 24.09.2003 and reviewing
authority order dated 04.12.2004, has taken note of certain legal
infirmities to the extent that both the disciplinary authority and
reviewing authority are exercising quasi judicial functions and
they have not adhered to certain set of principles. Hon'ble
Supreme Court has laid down certain principles as to how quasi
judicial order is to be passed in the case of Oryx Fisheries
Private Limited Versus Union of India and Others reported in
(2010) 13 SCC 427. Para 40 reads as under:
"40. In Kranti Associates [(2010) 9 SCC
Patna High Court L.P.A No.85 of 2020 dt.18-04-2025
496 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 852] this Court after
considering various judgments formulated certain
principles in SCC para 47 of the judgment which are
set out below : (SCC pp. 510-12)
"(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 lifeblood 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
Patna High Court L.P.A No.85 of 2020 dt.18-04-2025
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 Harv. L. Rev. 731-37.)
(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 553] ,
EHRR at p. 562, para 29 and Anya v. University of
Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 : 2001 ICR 847
(CA)] , wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the
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'."
The same has been taken note of by the learned Single
Judge and quashed the penalty order as well as reviewing
authority order.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.85 of 2020 dt.18-04-2025
6. The present appeal has been filed by the Corporation
without any substance in the appeal. Filing of this type of
frivolous LPA is not appreciable and it is deprecated.
7. Accordingly, we proceed to dismiss LPA No. 85 of
2020 while upholding the order of the learned Single Judge
dated 16.08.2019 passed in CWJC No. 10657 of 2005.
8. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
(S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
ranjan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 23.04.2025
Transmission Date NA
