Shareef Hussain vs State of U.P. and Others

Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The writ petition is directed against the impugned orders dated 19.03.2004 passed by Deputy Collector, Swar, District Rampur whereby Petitioner''s fair price agreement has been cancelled on the ground that he has violated terms and conditions of licence and also the Government orders regarding distribution of fair price commodities to beneficiaries and the appellate order dated 25.10.2004 rejecting appeal of Petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that both orders are wholly non-speaking and unreasoned and, therefore, are liable to be set aside.

From bare perusal of cancellation order it is evident that in the first paragraph the cancelling authority has referred to various steps taken earlier regarding preliminary inquiry, issuance of show cause notice/charge-sheet and Petitioner''s reply. Thereafter in one line it has said that Petitioner''s reply is not found satisfactory, hence the Petitioner is found guilty of violating terms and conditions of licence as also the Government orders regarding distribution of fair price commodities to beneficiaries and, therefore, his agreement is liable to be cancelled.

Same position is in respect to appellate order also. The appellate authority having referred to various steps taken at different level simply agree with the conclusion drawn by Deputy Collector without any discussion of facts. 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 quasi-judicial. 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, 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 "rubber-stamp" 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 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 quasi-judicial. 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. 855-56 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 subject-matter for a decision regardless of the fact whether such a decision is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. 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, 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 judge made 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.

The impugned orders are wholly non-speaking and has not discussed anything as to how the authorities concerned found reply of Petitioner unsatisfactory.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 19.03.2004, 05.02.2004 and 25.10.2004 are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to Deputy Collector for passing a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.