Punjab-Haryana High Court

Maninder Pal Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 7 February, 2025

              CWP-3505-2025
                       2025 (O&M)


                                                  Sr. No.102

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                         CHANDIGARH

                                                                CWP
                                                                CWP-3505-2025 (O&M)
                                                                Date of Decision : 07.02.2025

              Maninder Pal Singh                                ...
                                                                ...Petitioner
                                                    Versus

              State of Punjab and others                        ...Respondent
                                                                ...Respondents

              CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

              Present :        Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate,
                               for the petitioner.

                               Mr. Brijesh, AAG, Punjab.

                           ***
              LAPITA BANERJI,
                     BANERJI J. (Oral)

In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari

seeking quashing of orders dated August 4, 2017 (Annexure P P-2) passed by

respondent No.3-Additional No.3 Additional Deputy Commission Commissioner-cum-Collector, Jalandhar

and of the order dated December 11, 2024 (Annexure P P-4) passed by

respondent No.2-Divisional No.2 Divisional Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

impugned orders suffer from error of law on the face of the record as the

authorities themselves failed to take into consideration two Notificat Notifications both

dated November 2, 2015 vide No.S.O.47/C.A. XVI/1908/Ss. 78 and 79/2015

and No.S.O.48/CA2/1899/S.9/2015.

                   No.S.O.48/CA2/               As per the aforesa
                                                           aforesaid Notifications, no

               registration
                       tion fee or stamp duty was leviable
                                                  levi     for registration of instrument

regarding transfer of immovable property by an owner during his life time to

his/her spouse and to any blood relation, namely son, daughter, father,

mother, brother, ther, sister, grandson and grand-daughter.

grand daughter. The relevant extract of

the second Notification is reproduced hereinafter hereinafter:-

CWP-3505-2025 2025 (O&M)

"On the instruments pertaining to the transfer of immovable property by an owner during his life time to his/her spouse and to any in bloodblood relation, namely son, daughter, father, mother, brother, sister, grandson and grand grand-daughter."

3. He submits that during registration of the deed in question question, it was

clearly written that due to the operation of the aforesaid Notification Notifications, the

whole stamp duty and the registration fees fee were exempted as the same was

executed between the blood relations. However, the Collector/respondent

No.3 passed an ex parte order imposing stamp duty and registration fee. In

appeal, respondent No.2-Divisional No.2 Divisional Commiss Commissioner also passed a non-

speaking order again failing to take into account the purport and scope of the

aforesaid Notifications.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment of a

Coordinate Bench of this Court passed inn CWP No.17036 No.17036-2016 "Pritpal

Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others" decided on 15.10.2018.

5. Issue notice to the respondents.

6. Mr. Brijesh, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the

respondents-State State and submits that the appeal was filed belatedly and was

barred by limitation.

limita

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

on record.

8. Upon perusal of the impugned orders dated August 4, 2017 and

December 11, 2024, it appears to the mind of this Court that the true scope,

purport urport and effect of the aforesaid Notifications were not taken into account

while passing the impugned orders. Respondent No.3 mentioned the aforesaid

Notifications in his order but passed a completely unreasoned and non non-

               speaking order.       No reason was
                                                as provided as to why the said N
                                                                               Notifications

were not applicable to the facts of the case.

CWP-3505-2025 2025 (O&M)

9. It is trite law that any quasi judicial authority deciding a

dispute has to provide reasons reason in the order passed by it. A beneficial

reference is made to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Civil

Appeal No.7472 of 2010 "M/s "M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs.

Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and others" decided on 08.09.2010. Relevant

extract is reproduced hereinbelow:-

hereinbelow:

"17. The expression 'speaking order' was first coined by Lord Chancellor Earl Cairns in a rather strange context. The Lord Chancellor, while explaining the ambit of Writ of Certiorari, referred to orders with errors on the face of the record and pointed out that an order with errors on its face, is a speaking order. (See 188-97 97 Vol. 4 Apeal Cases 30 at 40 of the report)

18. This Court always opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial quasi judicial authority or even an adm administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the 'inscrutable face of a Sphinx'.

xxx xxx xxx

51. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds : a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if reasons, such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

b. A quasi-judicial 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 quasi judicial or even administrative power. e. Reasons reassure thatt 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.

CWP-3505-2025 2025 (O&M)

i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial 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 syste system.

j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial 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'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.

scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731 731-737). 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 v. 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 dictions 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".

Therefore, ann order which is non-speaking, non eaking, without any application of

independent mind and without any reasons cannot be sustained in law.

10. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated December 11,

2024 passed by respondent No.2 No. (Annexure P P-4) is set aside and quashed.

Respondent No.2 shall decide the appeal afresh and pass a reasoned order

upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

11. No unnecessary adjournment will be granted to the parties. It is

made clear that no coercive steps will be taken by the authorities agai against the

petitioner till such time the appeal is disposed of.

CWP-3505-2025 2025 (O&M)

12. With the directions aforesaid, CWP CWP-3505 of 2025 is disposed of.

13. Connected application(s), if any, are accordingly disposed of.