Court of the Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem.
2. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent
herein in is the plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, the parties
herein after referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
3. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed suit vide
Act. By the impugned order, the trial Court decreed the suit which
"As a result, the Court instructs the Tahsildar of
Kothagudem to annul defendant No.2's existing
passbook, specifically the portion measuring Ac.0.35gts
out of the total Ac.1.30gts. The remaining balance of
Ac.0.35gts in Sy.No.20EE/1&2 shall rightfully belong
to the plaintiff. Consequently, the suit is granted as
requested, without imposing any costs."
LNA, J
4. Heard Sri A.P.Suresh Ram, learned counsel for the
appellants, and Sri P.Venkanna, learned counsel for the respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants contended that
the learned Agent to Government committed grave error in passing
the impugned order. He further contended that the learned Agent to
Government without appreciating the facts of the case from a
proper perspective passed the impugned order and prayed to set
aside the same.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the
Agent to Government neither appreciated the contentions raised
and material placed on record by the appellants/defendants nor
recorded reasons for his decisions, therefore, it is fit for remand to
the Agent to Government for fresh adjudication on merits.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff did oppose
remand of the matter seriously.
8. The case in O.S.No.91 of 2021 was filed by the respondent
before the learned Agent to Government seeking to declare the
plaintiff as owner of the suit scheduled property and also for
LNA, J
declaration of issuing of pattadar passbook and 1-B Namuna, ROR
and Meeseva of the suit schedule property on the name of the
defendant by Tahsildar, Kothagudem as illegal, void and not
binding on the plaintiff.
9. A perusal of the record discloses that the learned Agent to
Government has not appreciated the facts of the case while passing
the impugned order as it is the bounden duty of the learned Agent
to Government to take into consideration the averments made in
the counter, appreciate the same on merits and thereafter, pass a
reasoned order.
10. 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.
11. In Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan1, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering various judgments,
formulated certain principles which are set out below:-
(2010) 9 SCC 496
LNA, J
"(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
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
LNA, J
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) ;
(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
LNA, J
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'."
12. 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
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
2022 SCC Online Guj 2530
LNA, J
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.
14. In the instant case, the learned Government to Agent has
evidently not adverted to the merits of the case and contentions set
out in the affidavits, filed in support of the aforesaid applications
and allowed the suit by way of a cryptic judgment.
LNA, J
15. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Kranti Associates (first cited supra) and the judgment of the High
Court of Gujarat in Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works (second
cited supra), it is to be held that the reasons, which are the heart
and soul of the order, are obviously missing in the impugned order.
Therefore, the impugned order dated 12.07.2023 is unsustainable in
the eye of law and accordingly, the same is set aside.
16. In the result, Appeal Suit is disposed of and the matter is
remitted back to the Agent to Government, Bhadradri
Kothagudem, with a direction to adjudicate the suit i.e., O.S.No.91
of 2021 afresh by taking into consideration the facts and the
submissions put forth by both the parties and pass appropriate
orders, in accordance with law, duly assigning the reasons there
for. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
04.02.2025
tssb
