Madhya Pradesh High Court
Health Care Devices Medical Pvt. Ltd. vs Madhya Pradesh Public Health Services ... on 16 March, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 MP 166
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH;
BENCH AT INDORE
W.P. No.2282/2021
Health Care Devices Medical Pvt. Ltd Vs. Madhya Pradesh Public
Health Service Corporation Ltd.
INDORE; DATED - 16/03/2021
Shri Vijay Kumar Assudani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rohit Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.
With the consent, heard finally.
This petition filed under section 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 22.01.2021 Annexure P/11 whereby, the Managing Director opined that the reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 16.10.2020 is not satisfactory and therefore, passed the order of debarment for a period of six months.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner pressed various ground to assail the impugned action and order including the ground that without the petitioner was put to show cause notice on 16.10.2020 Annexure P/9, the petitioner filed a detailed reply dated 19.10.2020 Annexure P/10. The respondent despite receiving the said reply did not consider the defense taken in the said reply and jumped to a conclusion that the said reply "is not satisfactory". No reasons are assigned as to why the said conclusion was drawn that the reply is not satisfactory. In absence of reasons, in view of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd and Another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others reported in (2010)9 SCC 496, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
3. The prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. He placed reliance on written statement and urged that there are various ground on the strength of which the impugned order is liable to be upheld.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
5. In the catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that debarring or blacklisting a contractor has drastic consequences on HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH;
him. The said penal action cannot be passed without following the "due process" and without assigning adequate reasons.
6. The reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner clearly shows that the petitioner has assigned detailed reasons in support of his defense. He mentioned about various clauses of NIT and prayed that no coercive action be taken against him.
7. In turn, the impugned order dated 22.01.2021 Annexure P/11 is passed debarring the petitioner for six months on the basis of a conclusion that reply filed by the petitioner is not satisfactory.
8. In our opinion, the aforesaid finding that reply is not satisfactory is a conclusion drawn by the Managing Director for which no reasons are assigned. Reasons are held to be heart beat of conclusion. In Kranti Associates (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized the need of assigning reasons in Administrative, Quasi Judicial and Judicial orders. The principles are summarized in para no.47, which reads as under:-
"47. Summarising 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 as 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.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH;
(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 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 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. '' (Emphasis Supplied)
9. On the basis of Judgment in Kranti Associates (supra), in contractual matter, the Division Bench of this Court in WP No.22807/2019 (M/s Aicons Engineering Pvt. Ltd Vs .State of MP and HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH;
others) decided on 05.11.2019 set aside the order which was not a speaking order and no reasons were assigned.
10. For the same reason, we are unable to uphold the order dated 22.01.2021 because it does not contain any reason whatsoever for the conclusion that reply is not satisfactory.
11. Resultantly, this order dated 22.01.2021 is set aside.
12. The Managing Director is directed to take a fresh decision in accordance with law on the reply filed by the petitioner to the said show cause notice.
13. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
(Sujoy Paul) (Shailendra Shukla)
Judge Judge
sourabh
Digitally signed by SOURABH
YADAV
Date: 2021.03.16 17:59:50 +05'30'