AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)
CM-13584-CWP-2025
Application is allowed, as prayed for. Replications to the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 as well as respondent No.5, are taken on record.
Main case
The petitioner, by way of instant writ petition, as cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 05.04.2024, (Annexure P-6), passed by the District Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Controller, Yamuna Nagar-respondent No.3, vide which, his PDS licence was cancelled, and also the order dated 05.03.2025 (Annexure P-8), whereby, the statutory appeal against the abovesaid order, has also been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 05.04.2024 (Annexure P-6), is bereft of any reasons. So much so, even the response/explanation tendered by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 27.03.2024, was discarded, solely by observing it to be non-satisfactory. He further submits that the petitioner had been working since last 20 years, during which, there was not even a single complaint against him. He asserts that the actual reason for framing the petitioner is that complainant-respondent No.5, who is Sarpanch of the village, has been nursing a grudge against him, as his nephew, namely Amit, had also contested the election for the same post. Therefore, in order to settle his personal scores, false and frivolous complaints were procured by respondent No.5 from some ration card holders, out of which, some belong to his family, as well.
Per contra, learned State counsel, in an attempt to protect the legality of the impugned orders, submits that as many as 17 ration card holders of the village, made complaints against the petitioner that he did not supply them full ration; he was in the habit of usurping ration, whenever a girl from the village got married or upon the death of a villager. Therefore, the authorities committed to illegality, while passing the impugned orders.
Likewise, learned counsel for respondent No.5, while joining hands with the learned State counsel, submits that a perusal of the show cause notice dispels any cloud over the misconduct/misdeeds committed by the petitioner. Further, he was served with a show cause notice, to which, he filed his response, but did not opt to appear before the authorities to prove his stand. In such circumstances, the authorities were left with no other option, but to proceed with the matter and pass the impugned orders.
This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, and has also perused the record.
It is a matter of record that petitioner had filed response to the show cause notice dated 27.03.2024. However, the authority concerned, in complete ignorance to the defence set up by the petitioner, passed the impugned order, without returning any finding as regards the insufficiency of reasons assigned by the petitioner in his reply. Therefore, primarily, the impugned order passed by respondent No.3, is unsustainable on this account.
Indisputably, as many as 17 ration card holders had leveled serious allegations against the petitioner, but respondent No.3 did not ascertain the veracity thereof. In such circumstances, it seems that respondent No.3 treated the allegations to be a gospel truth, and thus, proceeded with the matter. In fact, the authorities were obliged to unearth the truth before passing the impugned orders, which resulted in cancellation of licence of the petitioner. Resultantly, the impugned order (Annexure P-6) is untenable on this score also, and is required to be set aside.
It is a settled proposition of law that every order must be supported by reasons, as they constitute a pivotal nexus between the facts and the conclusion arrived at. Even the quasi judicial authorities are under obligation to accompany their orders with reasons, which not only ensure transparency but also facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Forums/Courts.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its decision in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, 2010 (9) SCC 496, in no uncertain terms, reinforces the vitality of existence of reasons, in support of the orders. It has been held that in Indian set up, there exists a well settled judicial trend mandating that reasons be assigned to every order, even in administrative decisions, particularly, when such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. Further, reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies:-
“15.The necessity of giving reason by a body or authority in support of its decision came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. Initially this 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 this Court in A.K. Kraipak and others vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1970 SC 150.
17.The expression ‘speaking order’ was first coined by Lord Chancellor Earl Cairns in a rather strange context. The Lord Chancellor, while explaining the ambit of Writ of Certiorari, referred to orders with errors on the face of the record and pointed out that an order with errors on its face, is a speaking order. (See 1878-97 Vol. 4 Appeal Cases 30 at 40 of the report).
51.Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:
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 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 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.”
Likewise, the Appellate Authority has also failed to factor in the abovenoted crucial aspect of the matter, and dismissed the appeal, while applying the same analogy. Pertinently, the Appellate Authority is expected to apply its own judicious mind to candidly scrutinize, whether the order passed the authority below is based on correct appreciation of the facts. However, the position in the matter at hand, as indicated above, is to the contrary.
In the wake of the position sketched out above, both the impugned orders are set aside. The matter is remitted to the District Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Controller, Yamuna Nagar-respondent No.3, with a direction to re--consider the entire issue in the light of the abovesaid observations, and pass a fresh order, assigning reasons in support thereof, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Further, since the licence of the petitioner was cancelled way back in the year 2024, the Authority concerned shall take a conclusive decision in the matter, within a period of four months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of.