Rajasthan High Court
Ajmer Educational Trust vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 9 February, 2024
Author: Shubha Mehta
Bench: Shubha Mehta
[2024:RJ-JP:6885-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4004/2021
Ajmer Educational Trust, Through Its Authorized Representative,
Having Its Registered Office At 28, Onkar Nagar, Gokhle Marg,
Civil Lines, Ajmer Running The Educational Institution- School By
The Name Of Delhi Public World School, Near Janana Hospital,
Chachiyavas, Sikar Road, Ajmer, Ajmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Transport Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Transport Commissioner (Tax), Transport
Department, Parivahan Bhawan, Sahkar Marg, Jaipur.
3. The District Transport Officer, Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Namonarayan Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sameer Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA
Order
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. (ORAL):
09/02/2024
1. This petition is filed for quashing of communication dated
01st February, 2021. Further prayer is to quash the demand notice
dated 16th March, 2021.
2. Brief facts are that the petitioner - Trust is running a school
and is plying 15 buses for transportation of students. The
petitioner sought tax exemption for the buses under the Rajasthan
Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1951 (for short "the Act"). The
exemption was refused on 01 st February, 2021 and demand notice
issued on 16th March, 2021.
[2024:RJ-JP:6885-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-4004/2021]
3. This writ petition is filed inter-alia for raising grievance that
exemption was rejected without passing an order, only by issuing
communication.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that prayer for
exemption was rejected after taking into consideration the
statutory provisions and factual aspects.
5. The communication dated 01st February, 2021 does not
comply with the pre-requisites of a speaking order. The
grant/refusal of exemption is a quasi-judicial function and law is
well-settled that the authority, while discharging its function, has
to pass a speaking order.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt.
Ltd. and another v. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and others
reported in 2010(9) SCC 496 held as under:
"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 serving
principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even
by administrative bodies.
[2024:RJ-JP:6885-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-4004/2021]
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 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.
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.
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. The rejection of prayer for exemption is violative of principles
of natural justice. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The
communication dated 01st February, 2021 is set aside. The matter
[2024:RJ-JP:6885-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-4004/2021]
is remitted back to the respondent No.2 to decide the matter
afresh in accordance with law.
8. In order to avoid any further delay, let the petitioner,
through its representative, appear in the office of respondent No.2
on 28.02.2024 at 11.00 AM. It goes without saying that after
providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent
No.2 shall make endeavour to conclude the proceedings as early
as possible in accordance with law.
(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J
Preeti Asopa /56
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
