Patna High Court - Orders
Binay Kumar Singh @ Vinay Kumar Singh& ... vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 15 July, 2014
Author: Shivaji Pandey
Bench: Shivaji Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13326 of 2013
======================================================
1. Binay Kumar Singh @ Vinay Kumar Singh Son Of Late Shivjee Prasad
Singh Resident Of Village - Supaul Under Municipality , Supaul Chakla
Nirmali, Ward No. 7, District - Supaul
2. Saurabh Kumar @ Saurabh Kumar Singh Son Of Binay Kumar Singh @
Vinay Kumar Singh Resident Of Village - Supaul Under Municipality ,
Supaul Chakla Nirmali, Ward No. 7, District - Supaul .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa
3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Supaul, District - Supaul
4. Raj Kumar Singh Son Of Late Mahavir Prasad Singh Resident Of Village
- Supaul, Under Municipality, Supaul Ward No. 7, Chakla Nirmali, District
- Supaul .... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwary, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : M/s Murari Narain Choiudhary and
Mohit Srivastava, Advs.
For the State Mr. AC to GA-XII
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 15-07-2014Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 11th April 2013 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa in Land Dispute Appeal No. 153 of 2013 whereby and whereunder he has passed one line order, is as follows:
"Petitioner files hajiri. Heard. Remanded to L.C. for fresh order".
The order speaks volume that quasi judicial authority has not discharged function as he was required to do under the law. Times without number, the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Patna High Court CWJC No.13326 of 2013 (4) dt.15-07-2014 2/4 Court always reminded either the administrative authority or the quasi judicial authority should pass a reasoned order disclosing his mind. If the order does not disclose, the higher Court will not be able to discern the mind what is the basis for passing the order. The reasoned order is a living link in between the decision maker and the decision, depriving the reason is against the rule of law as has been held in the judgment reported in (2003) 4 SCC 364, (Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and others Vs. P.C. Kakkar). It will be apt to quote para-15 of the said judgment, is as follows:
"It needs no emphasis that when a court feels that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, it must record reasons for coming to such a conclusion. Mere expression that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate would not meet the requirement of law. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union observed: (All ER p. 1154h) "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration." In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the Patna High Court CWJC No.13326 of 2013 (4) dt.15-07-2014 3/4 controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at." Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial view in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. Of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking-out the "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. This Court is of the view that order dated 11th April 2013 passed in Land Dispute Appeal No. 153/2013 is not sustainable in law, accordingly the same is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa to pass a reasoned order on the application filed by the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Patna High Court CWJC No.13326 of 2013 (4) dt.15-07-2014 4/4
This Court is not giving any opinion on the merit of the case.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.
(Shivaji Pandey, J) Mahesh/-
U