AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 19.08.1995 passed by the Circle Officer, Barwadih and also for quashing
the order dated 13.12.2013 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Palamau Division, Palamau in Misc. Appeal No. 67 of 1996.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that long standing zamabandi running in the name of the petitioners has been recommended to be cancelled
by the Circle Officer, Barwadih vide order dated 19.08.1995. He further submits that the same has been done with regard to the report of the Circle
Inspector without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. He further submits that the order dated 13.12.2013 has been passed without
assigning any reason, which cannot be allowed to be sustained in the eyes of law. He also submits that there is no discussion of the case of the
parties. The document has also not been considered while passing the order dated 13.12.2013 and no reason has been assigned for coming to the
conclusion while dismissing the appeal.
Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that they have already appeared in the court below and there is no illegality in
passing of the impugned order dated 13.12.2013.
This Court has perused the order dated 13.12.2013 and finds that the order is cryptic in nature. In view of the well settled proposition that an order
must be passed after providing reasons and discussing the case of the parties, that has not been done in the case in hand. In view of the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Trustees v. M/s Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2018) 8 SCC 44,3
the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Paragraph 14 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:
“14. Time and again, this Court has emphasized on the courts the need to pass reasoned order in every case which must contain the
narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issues arising in the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the legal
principles applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of the findings on all the issues arising in the case and urged by the
learned counsel for the parties in support of its conclusion. It is really unfortunate that the Division Bench failed to keep in mind these
principles while disposing of the writ petition. Such order, in our view has undoubtedly caused prejudice to the parties because it deprived
them to know the reasons as to why one party has won and other has lost. We can never countenance the manner in which such order was
passed by the High Court which has compelled us to remand the matter to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh on merits.â€
In view of the above facts and judicial pronouncement, the order dated 13.12.2013 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Palamau Division, Palamau
in Misc. Appeal No. 67 of 1996 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to respondent no.2 for passing a fresh order after providing opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner as well as other interested party, in accordance with law.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of.