Orissa High Court
M/S Penguin Trading And Agencies vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 6 January, 2023
Bench: B.R. Sarangi, B.P. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No. 36156 of 2022
M/s Penguin Trading and Agencies ..... Petitioner
Ltd., Keonjhar
Mr. I.A. Acharya, Adv.
Vs.
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.P. Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE B.P. SATAPATHY
ORDER
06.01.2023 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
01.
2. Heard Mr. I.A. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 20.10.2022 under Annexure-14, by which the appellate authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Rule- 46(1) of the OMMC Rules, 2016.
4. Mr. I.A. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that though the petitioner preferred appeal under Rule- 46(1) of the OMMC Rules, 2016, but, without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by a cryptic order, the same has been rejected by the authority, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
5. Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties looking at the order impugned does not dispute the above position and, as such, it is contended that since the order impugned has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without assigning any reason, the same cannot sustain in the eye of law.
Page 1 of 46. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that the order impugned dated 20.10.2022 under Annexure-14 has been passed without assigning reasons and, as such, it is incumbent upon the quasi judicial authorities, while passing the order, to assign reasons.
7. Needless to say, time and again the apex Court as well as this Court held that reasons being a necessary concomitant to passing an order, the Appellate Authority can thus discharge his duty in a meaningful manner either by furnishing the same expressly or by necessary reference to those given by the original Authority.
8. In Travancore Rayons Ltd. V. The Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 862, the apex Court observed that the necessity to give sufficient reasons, which disclose proper appreciation of the problem to be solved, and the mental process by which the conclusion is reached in cases where a non-judicial authority exercises judicial functions is obvious. When judicial power is exercised by an authority normally performing executive or administrative functions, the Court would require to be satisfied that the decision has been reached after due consideration of the merits of the dispute, uninfluenced by extraneous considerations of policy or expediency. The Court insists upon disclosure of reasons in support of the order on two grounds: one that the party aggrieved in a proceeding before the Court has the opportunity to demonstrate that the reasons which persuaded the authority to reject his case were erroneous; the other, that the obligation to record reasons operates as a deterrent against possible arbitrary action by the Executive Authority invested with the judicial power.
9. In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594, the apex Court held that keeping in view the expanding horizon of Principles of Natural Justice, the requirement to record reasons can be Page 2 of 4 regarded as one of the Principles of Natural Justice, which governs exercise of power by administrative Authorities. Except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an Administrative Authority is required to record reasons for its decision.
10. In Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, the apex Court observed that the reasons, if disclosed, being open to judicial scrutiny for ascertaining their nexus with the order, the refusal to disclose the reasons would equally be open to the scrutiny of the court; or else, the wholesome power of a dispassionate judicial examination of executive orders could with impunity be set naught by an obdurate determination to suppress the reasons.
11. In Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor, AIR 1974 SC 87, it has been held that 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 and reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion and decision 8 reached. Recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned applied its mind to the facts on record. It is vital for the purpose of showing a person that he is receiving justice.
Similar view has also been taken in Uma Charan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1915.
Similar view has also been taken by this Court in Patitapaban Pala v. Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. & another, 2017 (I) OLR 5 and in Banambar Parida v. Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited, 2017 (I) OLR 625.
12. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 20.10.2022 so passed by the appellate authority in Page 3 of 4 Annexure-14 cannot sustain in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to reconsider it afresh by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months form the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner.
13. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE Ashok (B.P. SATAPATHY) JUDGE Page 4 of 4