Telangana High Court

Dwaraka Das Prasad Died Per Lrs., vs The Asst. Commissioner on 9 February, 2024

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

      CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.800 & 807 of 2023

COMMON ORDER:

As the issue involved in these Civil Revision Petitions is

intrinsically connected to each other and arise out of the common

order passed by the Tribunal, both the Revisions are heard together

and being disposed of by a common order.

2. C.R.P.Nos.800 of 2023 and 807 of 2023 are filed against the

docket order dated 21.01.2023 passed in I.A.Nos.21 of 2023 and 95

of 2023, respectively, in O.A.No.26 of 2017 on the file of the

Telangana Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad.

4. While I.A.No.21 of 2023 was filed by the respondents herein

seeking to re-open the case for further evidence on their side,

I.A.No.95 of 2023 was filed by the respondents herein seeking to

receive the documents enclosed to the affidavit filed therein. The

Tribunal by the impugned common docket order allowed both the

applications.

5. The impugned common docket order reads as under:-

"I.A.No.95 of 2023 and of received document petition and I.A.No.21 of 2023 of reopen petition of G.P. is allowed.

LNA, J CRP.Nos.800 & 807 of 2023

Exhibits A1 to A2 are marked for cross of P.W.2. call on 07.3.2023."

6. Heard Sri J.Ashwin Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioners, and Sri J.R.Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the

respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the

Tribunal committed grave error in passing the impugned order. He

further contended that the Tribunal without taking into account the

counter filed by the petitioners herein and without appreciating the

facts of the case from a proper perspective passed the impugned

order and prayed to set aside the same.

8. The case in O.A.No.26 of 2017 was filed by the petitioners

herein before the Tribunal seeking to conduct an enquiry and to

declare the respondents herein as encroachers of the schedule

property and to evict the respondents herein from the said

premises. During the course of pending of the said O.A., the

respondents herein moved I.A.Nos.21 of 2023 and 95 of 2023

seeking to reopen the case to lead further evidence on their behalf

and to receive the documents filed along with the affidavit therein,

respectively.

LNA, J CRP.Nos.800 & 807 of 2023

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

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

counter in I.A.No.21 of 2023 denying the averments and the

allegations made by the respondents herein in the said application

and sought to dismiss the application i.e., I.A.No.21 of 2023.

However, the Tribunal without taking into consideration the

counter filed by the petitioners herein and without assigning any

reasons has passed the impugned order.

10. When applications are filed seeking certain interim order in

the main case and the respondents therein file counter denying the

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

said applications, it is the bounden duty of the Tribunal to take into

consideration the averments made in the counter, appreciate the

same on merits and thereafter, pass a reasoned order.

11. 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.

LNA, J CRP.Nos.800 & 807 of 2023

12. In Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan 1, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, 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.

(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

(2010) 9 SCC 496

LNA, J CRP.Nos.800 & 807 of 2023

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 also makes them subject to broader scrutiny (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-737) ;

LNA, J CRP.Nos.800 & 807 of 2023

(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'."

Following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Kranti Associates (one cited supra), the High Court of

Gujarat in Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works Vs. State of

Gujarat and others 2 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

2022 SCC Online Guj 2530

LNA, J CRP.Nos.800 & 807 of 2023

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 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."

13. 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.

LNA, J CRP.Nos.800 & 807 of 2023

14. In the instant case, the Tribunal 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 single line order.