Telangana High Court

Sri. Bathula Madhava Rao, vs Sagiraju Pagidamma on 8 February, 2024

      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

             CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.852 of 2023

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated

08.09.2022 in I.A.No.177 of 2013 in O.S.No.250 of 2013, on the file

of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to

Government, Mobile Court, Bhadrchalam (for short 'Mobile Court').

2. I.A.No.177 of 2013 was filed by the respondents

herein/plaintiffs seeking to order temporary injunction against the

petitioners herein/defendants and the Mobile Court has allowed

application as prayed for by made absolute the temporary injunction

order dated 23.11.2013 in favour of petitioner No.2. Plaintiff No.1

died.

3. The impugned order dated 08.09.2022 in I.A.No.177 of 2013

in O.S.No.250 of 2013, on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate

and Special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court,

Bhadrchalam, reads as under:-

"On perusal of documents of the petitioners house bearing No.3-27 consisting of 4 portions in an extent of 500.00 sq.yards in Sy.No.508 situated at Janampeta village, Pinapaka Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District and boundaries are quite difference.

The petitioners/plaintiffs 1 & 2 clearly established that their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petition scheduled property. The foregoing discussions the earlier granted temporary

LNA, J

injunction order dated 23.11.2013 hereby made absolute in favour of the petitioners/plaintiff No.2."

4. Heard Sri P.Shashi Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioners,

and Sri Sandeep Kumar Bodla, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners herein/defendant

contended that the Mobile Court committed grave error in passing

the impugned order. He further contended that the Mobile Court

without taking into account the counter filed by the petitioners

herein/defendants and without appreciating the facts of the case in

proper perspective, passed the impugned order. Hence, he prayed to

set aside the same.

6. The respondents herein/plaintiffs had filed O.S.No.250 of

2013 on the file of the Special Assistant Agent to the Government

Mobile Magistrate at Bhadrachalam, seeking to grant perpetual

injunction restraining the petitioners herein/defendants interfering

with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule

property. The respondents herein/plaintiffs have also moved

I.A.No.117 of 2013 seeking temporary injunction order against the

petitioners herein/defendants.

7. A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioners herein,

who are the respondents in the aforesaid I.A., have filed a detailed

LNA, J

counter in I.A.No.177 of 2013 denying the averments and the

allegations made by the respondents herein in the said application

and sought to dismiss the said application i.e., I.A.No.177 of 2013.

However, the Tribunal, without taking into consideration the counter

filed by the petitioners herein and without assigning any reasons,

had passed the impugned order.

8. When an application is filed seeking certain interim order in

the main case and the respondents therein filed counter denying the

averments and allegations in the affidavit filed in support of the said

application, it is the bounden duty of the Mobile Court to take into

consideration the averments made in the counter, appreciate the

same on merits and thereafter, pass a reasoned order.

9. In a catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court and various

High Courts held that any order passed by a Court or a quasi-

judicial authority or a Tribunal shall record reasons for its

conclusions.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Kranti Associates

Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan - (2010) 9 SCC 496, after considering

various judgments, formulated certain principles, which are set out

below:-

"(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

LNA, J

(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 life blood 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

LNA, J

also makes them subject to broader scrutiny (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harvard 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 Ruiz Torija v. Spain (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 decision.'

(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'."

11. Following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Kranti Associates' case supra, the High Court of Gujarat

in the case of Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works Vs. State of

Gujarat and others - 2022 (2) TR 5646 observed as under:-

"At the outset, we notice that it is settled legal position of law that reasons are heart and soul of the order and non communication of same itself amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing, resulting in miscarriage of justice. This court is bound by the said judgments hereinafter referred to. The necessity of giving reason by a body or authority in support of its decision came for consideration before the Supreme Court in several cases. Initially, the Supreme Court recognized a sort of demarcation between administrative orders and quasi- judicial orders but with the passage of time the distinction between the two got blurred and thinned out and virtually reached a vanishing point in the judgment of the Supreme Court in A. K. Kralpak v. Union of India (1970) 1 SCR 45. The Honourable Supreme Court vide judgments in the cases of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector Raigad (2012) 4 SCC 407, Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited (2010) 13 SCC 336; Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 and Abdul

LNA, J

Ghaffar v. State of Bihar (2008) 3 SCC 258, has expanded the horizon of natural justice and reasons have been treated part of the natural justice. It has gone to the extent in holding that reasons are heart and soul of the order."

12. Thus, the position of law that emerges from the decision

mentioned above is that assignment of reasons is imperative in

nature and the speaking order doctrine mandates assigning the

reason which is the heart and soul of the decision and said reasons

must be the result of independent re-appreciation of evidence

adduced and the documents produced in the case.

13. In the instant case, the Mobile Court has evidently not

adverted to the contentions set out in the affidavits filed in support

of the aforesaid applications, as well as the contentions raised by the

respondents therein in the counter and allowed the application by

way of a cryptic order.

14. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in