AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
With the consent, finally heard.
This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 30.04.2020 Annexure P/5 passed Sub-Divisional Officer
(SDO) Prathivipur and the order of Collector passed in appeal on 07.07.2020 Annexure P/7.
The case of the petitioner is that a show cause notice dated 02.03.2020 Annexure P/3 was served on him. He filed his reply on 06.03.2020 alongwith
certain documents. He denied the charges in toto. The respondent SDO passed order dated 30.04.2020 Annexure P/5 and the petitioner’s shop
was suspended. The petitioner preferred a detailed appeal Annexure P/6 running in almost 5 pages before the Collector, which was decided by the
impugned order dated 07.07.2020. Both the orders and decision making process is called in question mainly on the ground that no reasons have been
assigned in the impugned orders Annexure P/5 and Annexure P/7 as to why grounds taken by the petitioner in his reply and appeal memo did not suit
the authorities. In other words, in absence of reasons, the decision making process stands vitiated.
The contention is opposed by Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
I have heard the parties at length and perused the record. In reply to show-cause notice, the petitioner denied the allegations. While passing the
impugned order dated 30.04.2020 Annexure P/5, the SDO reached to a conclusion that the petitioner’s reply is not found to be satisfactory. Why
said reply was not found to be satisfactory and why the petitioner’s reply did not inspire confidence is not disclosed. The appellate order suffers
with the same infirmity. No ground raised in the detailed appeal memo is taken into account. The reasons are held to be heartbeat of the conclusion. In
absence of reasons, the conclusion cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.
The Apex Court in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others (2010) 9 SCC 49 6emphasized the need of
assigning reasons in administrative, quasi judicial and judicial orders. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:-
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 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.
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"".
If the impugned orders are tested on the anvil of principles laid down in M/s Kranti Associates the decision making process adopted by the
respondent was contrary to the principle of natural justice. The reasons have not been assigned while passing the impugned orders. Resultantly both
the order dated 30.04.2020 Annexure P/5 and 07.07.2020 Annexure P/7 are set aside. The SDO shall proceed from the stage of reply of petitioner is
received and pass proper order in accordance with law expeditiously preferrely within a period of 30 days. With the aforesaid and without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition is disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
Â