Allahabad High Court
Onkar Nath Singh & Another vs D.D.C. Amethi & Others on 25 August, 2021
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 19 Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 2140 of 2021 Petitioner :- Onkar Nath Singh & Another Respondent :- D.D.C. Amethi & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Pandey,Abhay Kumar Pandey,Durgesh Kumar Tiwari,Vivek Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
A short question is involved in the instant petition. By means of the impugned order dated 06.11.2020 contained in Annexure no.1 to the writ petition passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Amethi whereby the report submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer has been approved.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that upon reference which was made notices were issued to the petitioners in pursuance whereof they had filed their objections. However while deciding the same, there is no reference to the objections which were submitted. Neither there is any indication to indicate that any opportunity of hearing was granted or that the order discloses any reason. It is submitted that the order is completely non-speaking and without jurisdiction, accordingly is liable to be set aside.
The Court had required the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to seek instructions in the matter.
Today, it has been informed on the basis of written instructions that the notices were issued to the petitioners on 23.09.2017 which was served on 27.12.2017. It is further submitted that in furtherance thereof the petitioners had filed their objections on 30.11.2019. It is thereafter that after hearing the parties that the order has been passed, however, he candidly submits that the order is absolutely non-speaking and to that extent he is not inclined to defend the said order. However, he further submits that the Court may set aside the order remanding the matter to the Authority concerned to take afresh decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties within a time frame.
The Court has considered the rival submissions and has also perused the impugned order.
Now it is well settled that any order passed by the judicial or quasi judicial authority must contain reasons. It will be relevant to notice the observations of the Apex Court in the case of M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 wherein it has been held as under:-
"21.3 In the case of Hindustan Times Limited v. Union of India, (1998) 2 SCC 242, while emphasising on giving reasons by the High Court, it is observed that necessity to provide reasons, howsoever brief, in support of the High Court's conclusions is too obvious to be reiterated. Obligation to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate minimises the changes of arbitrariness and the higher forum can test the correctness of those reasons.
21.4 While considering the importance of the reasons to be given during the decision-making process, in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed, (2010) 9 SCC 496, in paragraph 47, this Court has summarised 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 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 lifeblood 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 Harvard Law Review 731-37]).
(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 Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)] , wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the 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"." Therefore, even while passing such an interim order, in exceptional cases with caution and circumspection, the High Court has to give brief reasons why it is necessary to pass such an interim order, more particularly when the High Court is exercising the extraordinary and inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a grave error of law and also of facts in passing such an interim order of "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4961 of 2021."
Testing the impugned order, in light of the aforesaid parameters as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Niharika Infrastructure (supra) there can be no two view that the impugned order is without any reason whatsoever and such an order cannot be sustained. In this view of the matter without entering into the merits of the dispute, this Court has no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order dated 06.11.2020 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Amethi which is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the Deputy Director of Consolidation concerned to consider and decide the objections afresh.
Let the parties appear before the Deputy Director of Consolidation concerned on 10th of September, 2021. The parties shall be at liberty of placing the order passed by this Court before the Authority concerned who shall after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned shall decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months.
It is made clear that the impugned order has beeen set aside only on the ground of it being a non reasoned order and this Court has not entered into the dispute on merits which shall be considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 25.8.2021 ank