Neeta Devi vs State of U.P. and Others

Hon''ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Considering the pure legal submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents stated that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit but would make oral submissions and the writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage under the Rules of this Court, hence I proceed accordingly.

This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 30.09.2010 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer Bilhaur, District Kanpur Nagar cancelling fair price shop agreement of petitioner and appellate order dated 28.11.2011 passed by Commissioner, Kanpur Mandal, Kanpur Nagar dismissing petitioner''s appeal. It is contended that the appellate order is totally non speaking and unreasoned.

I find substance in the submission. The appellate authority after referring to background facts of the case has considered the petitioner''s submission in the second last paragraph and thereafter it passes an order rejecting appeal and confirming cancellation order, which reads as under:

Ex facie it cannot be said that order passed by appellate authority is a reasoned one which has considered the various issued raised by petitioner in her appeal.

The impugned appellate order is wholly unreasoned and conclusion has been drawn without giving any reason. Learned Standing Counsel despite his best efforts could not show any reason contained in impugned appellate order which has been 3 given by authority concerned after considering reply of petitioner.

It is well known that "conclusions" and "reasons" are two different things and reasons must show mental exercise of authorities in arriving at a particular conclusion.

In Union of India (UOI) Vs. Mohan Lal Capoor and Others, , as under:

Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasijudicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached.

Referring to the above case law, Apex Court in Gurdial Singh Fijji Vs. State of Punjab and Others, in para 18 said:

We may also indicate, since the High Court saw the file and discovered that the appellant was not brought on the Select List because he was "not found suitable otherwise", that regulation 5 which deals with the preparation of a list of suitable officers provides by Clause 7 that "if in the process of selection, review or revision it is proposed to supersede any member of the State Civil Service, the Committee shall record its reasons for the proposed supersession". While dealing with an identical provision in Clause 5 of regulation 5 of the same Regulations as they stood then, this Court observed in Union of India (UOI) Vs. Mohan Lal Capoor and Others, that "rubberstamp" reasons given for the supersession of each officer to the effect that the record of the officer concerned was not such as to justify his appointment "at this stage in preference to those 4 selected", do not amount to "reasons for the proposed supersession" within the meaning of Clause 5. "Reasons", according to Beg J. (with whom Mathew J. concurred) "are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions". The Court accordingly held that the mandatory provisions of regulation 5(5) were not complied with by the Selection Committee. That an officer was "not found suitable" is the conclusion and not a reason in support of the decision to supersede him. True, that it is not expected that the Selection Committee should give anything approaching the judgment of a Court, but it must at least state, as briefly as it may, why it came to the conclusion that the officer concerned was found to be not suitable for inclusion in the Select List. In the absence of any such reason, we are unable to agree with the High Court that the Selection Committee had another "reason" for not bringing the appellant on the Select List.

The Apex Court in the case of Uma Charan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, said:

Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasijudicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable

In McDermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and Others, Apex Court referring to Bachawat''s Law of Arbitration and Conciliation, 4th Edn., pp. 85556 in para 56 said:

Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions.

Recently the Apex Court in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, referring to the judgment in Mohan Lal Capoor (supra) in para 23 said:

Such reasons must disclose how mind was applied to the subjectmatter for a decision regardless of the fact whether such a decision is purely administrative or quasijudicial. This Court held that the reasons in such context would mean the link between materials which are considered and the conclusions which are reached. Reasons must reveal a rational nexus between the two.

The Apex Court recently also in Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Another, in para 68 referring to the judgment in the case of Gurdial Singh Fijji (supra) said:

Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. By practice adopted in all courts and by virtue of judgemade law, the concept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law. Clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and therefore, proper reasoning is foundation of a just and fair decision.

Since the impugned appellate order is wholly unreasoned and nonspeaking the same cannot be sustained. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned appellate order dated 28.11.2011 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to appellate authority to decide petitioner''s appeal afresh in accordance with law. The petitioner is also entitled to costs, which I quantified to Rs. 2000/against respondent no. 2. The cost shall be paid to petitioner within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, failing which it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.