Allahabad High Court
Dr. Ramesh Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief ... on 30 October, 2019
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 19 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 17235 of 2019 Petitioner :- Dr. Ramesh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy.Panchyat Raj And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Shahi,Amrendra Nath Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pt S Chandra,Vinod Kumar Maurya,Yogendra Nath Yadav Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Rejoinder-affidavit filed by the petitioner to the counter-affidavit filed by the opposite party no.5 is taken on record.
Notice on behalf of the opposite parties no.1 to 4 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel.
Heard Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, assisted by Shri Ashutosh Shahi learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Saurabh Yadav holding brief of Shri Yogendra Nath Yadav for opposite party no.6. as well as Shri Pt. S. Chandra for opposite party no.5.
The petitioner assails the order dated 18.04.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tahsil Gonda, District Gorakhpur passed in furtherance of powers conferred under Rule 6-A of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (maintenance of family registers) Rule 1970.
In order to put the controversy in a perspective certain brief facts giving rise to the above petition are being noted first.
The backdrop of the dispute commences in light of the fact that the petitioner and the opposite party no.5 were both working as Lecturer in Fateh Memorial Inter College, Tamkuhi Raj, Kushi Nagar. Upon a post of the Principal having fallen vacant, both the petitioner and opposite party no.5 raised their claim. The petitioner made a complaint against the opposite party no.5 that initial appointment of the opposite party no.5 as a teacher in the aforesaid institution was void on account of the fact that the opposite party no.5 had two wives living and an offspring from the second wife. However, this matter is engaging the attention of this Court in a different writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.26167 (S/S) of 2018. which is connected with the instant petition. However, in the present controversy what needs to be seen is that in the aforesaid backdrop where the matter was engaging the attention regarding eligibility of opposite party no.5 to be considered on the post of Principal, the petitioner had brought in certain documents to substantiate his case regarding the existence of the second wife and children therefrom of the opposite party no.5.
The opposite party no.5 made an application to the appropriate authority for cancelling or removal of the names of Smt. Malti Devi and Km. Guddi @ Tripti on the premise that both Smt. Malti Devi and Km. Guddi are not the members of the family of the opposite party no.5 and their names have incorrectly been entered in the family register of the opposite party no.5.
On 24.05.2018, the authority concerned had passed an order by which the name of Smt. Malti Devi and Km. Guddi was scored of from the family register maintained under the aforesaid Rules of 1970. The petitioner raised his complaint again this before the authority concerned that once the name of Smt. Malti Devi and Km. Guddi had been entered in family registered and the initial order has not been appealed against in terms of 6-A and no provision under the Rules of 1970 conferred the power of review over the authority concerned, therefore, the order dated 24.05.2018 was incorrect. The authority by means of order dated 24.07.2018 restored the entries of Smt. Malti Devi, Km. Guddi and One Manoj Kumar.
The opposite party no.5 being aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 24.07.2018 preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Magistrate who by means of the impugned order dated 18.04.2019 has allowed the appeal of the opposite party no.5 and found that the names of Smt. Malti Devi, Km. Guddi and Manoj Kumar were incorrectly entered and they have been directed to be removed from the family register relating to the opposite party no.5.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appeal was incompetent as it has been filed under incorrect provision and even otherwise since he was a contesting party as he had raised the complaint, it was necessary that he ought to have been heard and the order impugned is nothing but an exercise in futility since the initial order by which the names of Smt. Malti Devi and Km. Guddi have been incorporated, had not been challenged by the opposite party no.5.
Per contra, Shri Pt. S. Chandra has submitted that it is for the first time when the order dated 24.07.2018 was passed by which the names of Smt. Malti Dwivedi and Km. Guddi were directed to be restored, gave a cause of action to the opposite party no.5 and it is in view thereof that he had preferred an appeal. He has submitted that merely by quoting the wrong provision of law it will not denude the jurisdiction of the authority concerned to entertain the appeal. He has further submitted that he had preferred an appeal under Rule 6-A before the competent authority. However, instead of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (maintenance of family register) Rules 1970 incorrectly it was mentioned as Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. However, it has been submitted that it does not denude the authority to deal with the matter coupled with the fact that from the perusal of the impugned order, it would indicate that he has taken note of the controversy which was before him and it cannot be stated that he was exercising power under Section 6-A of the Uttar pradesh Panchayat Raj Act of 1947.
Shri Pt. S. Chandra has further submitted that as far as the petitioner is concerned, he has got no locus standi to maintain the above writ petition or to assail the order passed by the appellate authority; inasmuch as this is to be seen only in context with the person whose family is affected by inclusion of a name or in context with a person whose name is refused to be incorporated and since the petitioner is a stranger in both the context, therefore, he has no right to assail. Shri Chandra has submitted that the opposite party no.5 was married to one Smt. Anuradha and not to Smt. Malti Devi.
However, considering the impugned order, this Court finds that it does not meet the standard which must be an order passed by a judicial or quashi judicial authority. Though the contention has been noted but while passing the impugned order, there is no reasoning given by the authority concerned. It has not taken note of any of the material which was available before it in terms of evidence or the averments and merely by means of cryptic finding in four lines, it has held that the names of Smt. Malti Devi and Km. Guddi has been incorrectly incorporated in the family register and with the aforesaid, the appeal of the opposite party no.5 has been allowed.
An attempt has been made by Shri Pt. S. Chandra to defend the order. However, he could not dispute the fact that the material which was relevant for arriving at the finding has not been considered nor it is reflected in the aforesaid order. It is trite that the reasons are must for any order to be passed by any authority specially when the same is assailable either before an appellate authority or before the superior courts. In the case of Cyril Lasrado (dead) by Irs and others Vs. Juliana Maria Lasrado and another reported in 2004 (7) SCC page 431 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable.
Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All E.R. 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) 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 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 review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One 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."
From the perusal of the principle as extracted above, it would be clear that the order dated 18.04.2019 does not meet the parameters and is a non-speaking and non-reasoned order.
In the aforesaid backdrop, the impugned order cannot be sustained on this ground alone thus there is no gainful purpose of keeping the aforesaid writ petition pending, accordingly with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of with the direction to the opposite party no.2 to re-hear the appeal of the opposite party no.5 and it shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well and only after hearing both the sides shall pass an order afresh.
It is further clarified that this Court has not examined the contentions of the respective parties on merits and thus authority concerned shall pass fresh order without being influenced by any of the observation contained in this order. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 30 days from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned. It is made clear that all questions are left open to be decided by the authority concerned.
With the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 18.04.2019 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the opposite party no.2 with the aforesaid direction.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed.
The connected Writ Petition No.26167 (S/S) of 2018 shall be delinked and shall be listed before appropriate Bench for hearing.
Order Date :- 30.10.2019 ank