Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhupinder Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 21 October, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137695
CWP No. 13006-1998 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(103) CWP No. 13006-1998 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 21.10.2024
Bhupinder Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Abhishek Kaushik, Advocate for
Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. T.P.S. Chawla, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been taken up after preponing the same from
06.11.2024 to today.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that against the order
of punishment, the petitioner had filed an appeal, which appeal has not only
been dismissed on the ground of delay but as well as on merit but without
giving any reason. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order
in appeal has to be a reasoned order, which fact is missing in the present case,
hence, the order dated 30.04.1998 (Annexure P-22) passed in appeal is liable
to be set-aside.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits
that once a detailed order has been passed imposing the punishment and it is
also a conceded fact that the appeal was filed after a period of 07 days, the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137695
CWP No. 13006-1998 (O&M)
prayer of the petitioner that the order passed in appeal is cryptic and non-
speaking may kindly be rejected.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
5. It is a settled principle of law that order to be passed in appeal
has to be reasoned so that all the grounds taken in appeal are decided with
conscious decision. The conscious decision will only mean that for every
conclusion, the reasons are given by the appellate authority.
6. In the present case, the respondents though, are declining to
condone the delay of 07 days but no reason has been given by them and they
have even mentioned that on merit also the said appeal is rejected but without
giving any reason.
7. Further, as per the settled principle of law settled by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.457 of 1970 titled as Mahabir
Prasad Santosh Kumar vs. State of U.P and others, decided on 02.04.1970,
the order in appeal should be speaking order so as to discuss every objection
taken by the officer concerned against the order of punishment. Relevant
paragraphs of the said judgment are as under:-
"5. The case discloses a disturbing state of affairs. The
authorities have disclosed by their conduct a reckless disregard
of the rights of the appellants. The order passed by the District
Magistrate cancelling the licences was quasi-judicial; it could
be made only on a consideration of the charges and the
explanation given by the appellants. That necessarily implied
that the District Magistrate had to give some reasons why he
held the charges proved, and the explanation unacceptable.
When the matter was carried in appeal, the State Government
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137695
CWP No. 13006-1998 (O&M)
could at least have acted with some awareness that citizens have
rights which must be protected against possible arbitrary action
by subordinate officials. The District Magistrate is not made the
final authority in cancelling the licence. The appellants had a
right to carry on their business, and as they held a licence to
carry on their business they could be deprived of their right by
an executive order supported by good and adequate reasons. The
relevant rules granted a right of appeal to the State Government
against that order, and that implied that the aggrieved party
must have an opportunity to convince the State Government that
the order passed by District Magistrate was erroneous. That
right could be effectively exercised if reasons be recorded by the
District Magistrate and supplied to the aggrieved party. If the
aggrieved party is not supplied the reasons, the right to appeal is
an empty formality.
6. From the materials on the record it cannot be determined
as to who considered the appeal addressed to the State
Government, and what was considered by the authority
exercising power on behalf of the State Government. The
practice of the executive authority dismissing statutory appeals
against orders which prima facie seriously prejudice the rights
of the aggrieved party without giving reasons is a negation of
the rule of law. This Court had occasion to protest against this
practice in several decisions : See Madhya Pradesh Industries
Ltd. v. Union of India, (1966)1 SCR 466 (per Subba Rao, J.);
Bhagat Raja v. Union of India, (1967)3 SCR 302; State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Narsinghdas Jankidas Mehta, C.A. No. 681
of 1966, decided on 29-4-1969(SC); State of Gujarat v. Patel
Raghav Nath, C.A. No. 723 of 1966, decided on 21-4-1969 and
Prag Das UmarVaishya v. Union India, C.A. No. 657 of 1965,
decided on 17-8-1967 (SC). The power of the District Magistrate
was quasi-judicial : exercise of the power of the State
Government was subject to the supervisory power of the High
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137695
CWP No. 13006-1998 (O&M)
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and of the appellate
power of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. The
High Court and this Court would be placed under a great
disadvantage if no reasons are given, and the appeal is
dismissed without recording and communicating any reasons."
8. Learned counsel for the State has not been able to deny the fact
that the order dated 30.04.1998 (Annexure P-22) deciding the appeal is
cryptic and non-speaking, hence, the order dated 30.04.1998 (Annexure P-
22) is set-aside. The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal
afresh in accordance with law. Merely that the appeal was delayed by 07
days, in case the petitioner has given good reasons for delay of those 07 days,
the same be also taken into account while passing appropriate order on the
appeal.
9. Petition is disposed of in above terms.
10. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed
of.
October 21, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
4 of 4
