Ram Bahadur Maurya vs Commissioner, Lucknow Division and Another

Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.

In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner by virtue of agreement was granted a licence to run a fair price shop in Gram Panchayat Bhanwa, Vikas Khand Rahi, Raebareli in the year 1995. The said fair price shop of the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 9.11.2006. Aggrieved by the same , the petitioner filed an appeal ( Appeal No. 521 of 2006) before the Commissioner , Lucknow Division Lucknow and the same was allowed by means of order dated 26.12.2006 directing the opposite party No. 2 to decide the same on merit by 31.1.2007.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the said fact , the matter came up again for consideration before opposite party No. 2, who by means of order dated 26.2.2007 cancelled the petitioner''s agreement. The same was challenged by means of statutory appeal before the Commissioner Lucknow Division , Lucknow and the same was dismissed by order dated 23.1.2008. Aggrieved by the orders dated 23.1.2008 and 26.2.2007 passed by opposite parties No. 1and 2 respectively. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order submits that the said order is non-speaking and unreasoned order as the grounds which were taken by the petitioner in appeal and the documents placed in support of his case were not considered by the appellate authority as such the action on the part of the respondents is in violation of principles of nature justice and impugned orders passed by the respondents are arbitrary in nature, so the present writ petition deserves to be allowed.

On the other hand, Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner''s licence for running a fair prices shop has been cancelled on the basis of material documents on record on 26.2.2007 and thereafter an appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by order dated 23.1.2008 by the appellate authority and there is neither any illegality nor infirmity in the order passed by the respondents, so the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From the perusal of the appellate order dated 23.1.2008 ( Annexure No. 5) passed by opposite party No. 1, it is clear that the said authority while passing the same has stated that no special ground has been raised by the appellant in the appeal accordingly reasons given by the court below, cannot be said to be against law and the same is based on evidence on record . Further, from the perusal of the said order, it is established that the grounds and points which were raised by the appellant in his appeal before the appellate authority , a copy of which has been produced before this Court by the learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments and perused the same, was not considered and discussed by the appellate authority while passing the impugned order .

From perusal of the judgment and order dated 27.9.2006 passed by the respondent No. 1, it is crystal clear that no reason whatsoever has been given by the respondent No. 1 while passing the order dated 27.9.2006 rather the same is cryptic judgment devoid of reasons and without appreciation of rival claims of the parties is unsustainable and arbitrary in nature.

Law is settled that a decision arrived at by any authority without giving any reason is a totally arbitrary decision. It has been repeatedly held by this Court as well as by the Hon''ble Apex Court that giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. Reasons introduce clarity in an order and indicate an application of mind. The respondent ought to have set forth their reasons in their orders, howsoever brief may be, in order to indicate an application of their mind, all the more, when their orders are amenable to further avenue of challenge.

In Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union reported in 1971 (1) All ER 1148 it was held that ''the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.'' In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree reported in 1974 (4) ICR 120 (NIRC) it was observed that ''failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.''

Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the ''inscrutable face of the sphinx'', it can by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the latter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. On of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking-out. The ''inscrutable face of the sphinx'' is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.''

This Court in the case of Rajendra Singh and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors. reported in 2005(99) RD 46 has held that one of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking-out. The ''inscrutable face of the sphinx'' is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.

In view of the above said fact, the appellate order passed by the 23.1.2008 is unreasoned and non- speaking order and is liable to be set aside.

For the foregoing reasons the order dated 23.1.2008 passed by the Commissioner , Lucknow Division Lucknow in appeal No. 681 of 2006-07, Ram Bahadur Maurya v. State of U.P. is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the appellate authority to consider and decide the same on merit after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties therein.

With the above observations, the writ petition is partly allowed.