Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Singh Tomar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 July, 2020
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.10353/2020
(Rajendra Singh Tomar vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, Dated : 28.07.2020
Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General for
the respondents/State.
In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the government of India, this petition has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/physical distancing in letter and spirit.
Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in similar circumstances the Writ Petition No.4180/2020 in the name of TRIVENI PRASAD MISHRA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS has been considered and decided by the coordinate bench of this Court on 18.06.2020. The case of the present petitioner is exactly identical to that of petitioners in W.P. 4180/2020. No opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners while passing the impugned order. The coordinate bench has considered the aforesaid aspect by placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. And another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 and disposed of the writ petition as under :-
"The impugned orders dated 16.12.19 show that the respondent have mentioned about filing of reply to the show cause notices by petitioners and then jumped to the 'conclusion' that the said reply was not satisfactory. No reasons are assigned as to why the said reply was not found to be satisfactory.2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.10353/2020 (Rajendra Singh Tomar vs. State of M.P.) The Apex Court in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. And another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others (2010) 9 SCC 496 opined that the reasons are heartbeat of conclusion. In absence of reasons, conclusion cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.
In the said judgment, the Apex Court emphasized the need of assigning reasons in administrative, quasi judicial and judicial orders. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:-
51. 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.3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.10353/2020 (Rajendra Singh Tomar vs. State of M.P.) 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 impugned order is tested on the anvil of ratio decidendi of said judgment, it will be clear like noonday that no reasons are assigned in the impugned orders. In absence of reasons, the impugned orders dated 16.12.2019 are set aside. Liberty is reserved to the Disciplinary Authority to take a fresh decision in accordance with law expeditiously.
The petition is allowed.
C.C. as per rules."
He prays for disposal of the petition in the similar terms.
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State appears in the matter and submits that in similar circumstances the coordinate bench of this Court in W.P. No.10232/2020 has passed an order on 27.07.2020 whereby the petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available to him under law. He submits that the petitioner may avail the alternative remedy available to him and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner while passing the impugned order and the same is clearly violation of 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.10353/2020 (Rajendra Singh Tomar vs. State of M.P.) principles of natural justice and placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates (supra), this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the order passed in W.P. No.4180/2020 vide order dated 18.06.2020.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.03.2020 is set aside.
Petition is disposed of in terms of order dated 18.06.2020 passed in W.P. No.4180/2020.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE van SMT VANDANA VERMA 2020.07.31 11:31:15 -07'00'