Ramu Soni vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 16.5.2018 whereby the respondents have invoked Section 92 of the Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj

Adhiniyam, 1993 and directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.2.985 lacs within seven days.

Criticizing that order, it is argued that in the show cause notice, it is alleged that the construction work has been done without any approval. The

petitioner filed his reply Annexure P-6 dated 25.1.2018 and contended that the works were sanctioned by issuance of Collector's letter dated

12.5.2017. The petitioner did not admit the allegations of show cause notice.

Shri Trivedi, learned counsel contends that in the final order dated 16.5.2018, there is no whisper about the defense of the petitioner. By passing the

impugned order, reasonable opportunity as mandated in sub section 4 of Section 92 was not granted to the petitioner.

Shri Shroti, learned P.L. supported the impugned order.

No other point is pressed by counsel for the parties.

The scope of judicial review in the matter of this nature is regarding the decision making process adopted by the respondent. On a conjoint reading of

the show cause notice dated 19.1.2018 Annexure P-5 and petitioner's reply dated 25.1.2018 Annexure P-6 shows that the department and petitioner

have taken a diametrically opposite stand about the approval of the construction in question. In the final order, the respondents have reached to a

conclusion that petitioner's reply is not satisfactory. In support of this conclusion, no reasons are assigned. No heed is paid as to why the defense

taken by petitioner which is founded upon alleged order of Collector dated 12.5.2017 mentioned as Annexure P-6 is not trustworthy.

In M/sKranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, the Supreme Court emphasized the need of assigning reasons in

administrative, quasi judicial and judicial proceedings. The relevant portion reads as under:

Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:

a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even inadministrative 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 ofjustice 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 makeron relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decisionmaking process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial,

quasijudicial 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 andconstitutional 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 asthe 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 andtransparency.

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 onabuse 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 doctrineof 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 upprecedents 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"".â€

If the impugned order is tested on the anvil of principles laid down in Kranti Associates (supra), it will be crystal clear that no reasons are assigned in

the impugned order while rejecting the petitioner defense. Pertinently, in the show cause notice, there was no allegations that for construction, the

approval of In-Charge Minister is required whereby the petitioner is held guilty for acting without approval of In-Charge Minister.

This is trite law that a person cannot be punished for a reasons which was not subject matter of show cause notice. In this view of the matter, I deem

it proper to set aside the order dated 16.5.2018 and remit the matter back before the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with

law. The order dated 16.5.2018 Annexure P-8 is set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner by issuing the fresh

show cause notice at appropriate stage.

It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

The writ petition is disposed of.