AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the parties are at loggerheads on the legality, validity and propriety of the
order dated 29.08.2017, whereby the application of plaintiff filed under Section 13(6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 is allowed
and right to file defence is struck-of by the Court below.
Criticizing this order, Mr. Rajesh Maindiretta, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court below by order dated 18.09.2015 fixed
the provisional rent as Rs.600/- per month and directed the present petitioner to deposit the rent as per the directions contained in the said order.
The respondent/plaintiff filed a cryptic application dated 20.12.2016 and contended that the said order dated 18.09.2015 has not been complied
with. In turn, the petitioner/defendant filed a detailed reply dated 07.04.2017 and demonstrated that requisite rent has already been deposited and
thereafter the respondent is regularly depositing the rent in CCD. Mr. Maindiretta, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no
discussion at all in the impugned order regarding the genuineness of the defence taken by the petitioner. In other words, it is submitted that the
Court below reproduced the stand of the parties followed by reproduction of the relevant provision and thereafter jumped to the conclusion that
the petitioner has violated Section 13 of the said Act. No reasons are assigned as to why the petitioner''s defence was not trustworthy.
Per-contra, Mr. R.S. Mehndiratta, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. He submits that the amount deposited by
the petitioner was not adequate and was not in consonance with the order dated 18.09.2015.
No other point is pressed by the parties.
I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
A plain reading of stand taken by the plaintiff and defendant shows that they have taken a diametrically opposite stand on the question of
depositing the entire rent as per Court''s order dated 18.09.2015. The Court below in the impugned order dated 29.08.2017 reproduced the
stand taken by the parties in the first page of the order. Thereafter, the relevant portion of Section 13 was quoted and thereafter the Court opined
that the present petitioner has neither paid rent on regular basis nor entire rent has been paid. In support of this conclusion no reasons are assigned.
This was the minimum expectation from the Court below that adequate reasons will be assigned if defence of the present petitioner did not suit the
Court. This is trite law that reasons are heartbeat of conclusion. In absence of reasons, conclusion cannot be countenanced. The Apex Court in
M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & another vs. Masood Khan & other, 2010 (9) SCC 496 emphasized the need of assigning reasons in
administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial proceedings. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads 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. 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 M/S Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs
Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors on 8 September, 2010 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.
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 Harward 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 (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs.
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 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"".
[Emphasized Supplied]
If the impugned order is tested on the anvil of the said judgment, it will be clear like noon day that the Court below has recorded the conclusion
which is not supported by adequate reasons. Thus, the decision making process adopted by the Court below is polluted. Since manifest
procedural impropriety exists in the impugned order, the said order is liable to be set aside. Resultantly, the order dated 29.08.2017 is set aside.
The Court below is directed to rehear the parties and pass a fresh order in accordance with law within 30 days'' from the date of communication of
copy of this order.
Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any view on the merits of the case. C.C. as
per rules.