Gujarat High Court
Shashikala Parsottamdas Patel vs Lhr Of Badriprasad Poonamchand Agrawal on 21 July, 2023
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3685/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3685 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3685 of 2021
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2580 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2580 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 2 of 2021
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2580 of 2021
================================================================
SHASHIKALA PARSOTTAMDAS PATEL
Versus
LHR OF BADRIPRASAD POONAMCHAND AGRAWAL
==============================================================================
Appearance:
M/S WADIAGHANDY AND CO(5679) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
for the Defendant(s) No. 1,10,11,1.1,12,1.2,13,14,15,16,17,2,3,5,6,7,8,9
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1.5,1.4,1.5
MR MANOJ S JOSHI(2961) for the Defendant(s) No. 5.1,5.2,5.3
PRIYANK S DAVE(9465) for the Defendant(s) No.
1.1.1,1.1.2,1.1.3,1.1.4,1.3,1.6,2.1,2.2,2.3,3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4,3.5,3.6,4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 21/07/2023
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Jay Kansara for M/S Wadia Ghandy and Co. for the appellants/applicants, learned advocate Mr.A.S.Vakil with learned advocate Mr.Jaimin Dave and learned advocate Mr.Priyank Dave for the respondent Nos.1.1.1 to 1.1.4, 1.3., 1.6, 2.1 to 2.3, 3.1 to 3.6 and 4 and learned Page 1 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:27:41 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3685/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined Senior Advocate Mr.M.B.Gandhi with learned advocate Mr.Manoj S. Joshi for the respondent Nos.5.1 to 5.3.
2. By this First Appeal, the judgment and order dated 9th March, 2017/decree dated 4th September, 2021 is under challenge.
3. There is a chequered history of the case suffices to say that this is second round of the challenge to the judgment and decree as the Division Bench of this Court (Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jayant Patel and Hon'ble Ms.Justice Sonia Gokani as their Lordships were then) remanded the matter back vide order dated 09.12.2013 passed in First Appeal No.2733 of 2009 and other allied matters with directions as reproduced by the Court below in the impugned judgment and decree which reads as under :
Page 2 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:27:41 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3685/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined "3. The said order and consent decree was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble High court of Gujarat, remanded the said matter with direction to decide the formulated following points Points.
(1) Whether the power of Attorney had acted against the interest of the Principal or had acted in excess of express authority while signing the consent therms or not ?
(2) Whether the decree for possession could be maintained in favuor of the original plaintiff when the sale deed at exh.501,503 & 505 were to be declared null & void ?
(3) Whether the decree for possession could be confirmed in favour of the original plaintiffs in absence of prior decree for specific performance of contract ?
(4) Whether the decree for Specific performance of contract can be passed for the whole of the property b excluding the interest in the property of original defendants no.3 ?
(5) Whether the decree for possession of the whole property can be confirmed in favour of the original plaintiffs without their being any decree for Page 3 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:27:41 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3685/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined specific performance of contract against original defendant no.3 ?
(6) When the original defendant no.3 is not party to the consent terms can any decree be passed excluding his right in the property or without their being any specific arrangement made for proportinate consideration or for handing over the possession of the whole of the property ?
(7) If no decree is passed against the defendant no.3 whether the whole suit can be disposed of or not?"
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench of this Court remanding the matter on the aforesaid issues, the evidence was led before the Court below by both the sides and after considering the arguments, the Court below passed the following order :
"13. Hence on the basis discussion, I answer that
(i) Part decree can be passed on basis of consent terms,
(ii) decree directing execution of sale-deed for undivided share of Page 4 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:27:41 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3685/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined defendant no.1/1 to 1/3,2, 5 to 7 in lieu of remaining proportinate consideration can be passed.
(iii) decree as to possession of the suit property in favour of plaintiffs cannot be made, at this stage.
(iv) entire suit cannot be disposed of, and suit is required to be proceeded against defendant no.3.
14. The present case before it came by way of remand before this court was shown as finally disposed and hence present matter is shown as disposed on present judgment."
5. After arguing the matter for some time, learned advocates for both the sides jointly by consensus submitted that without entering into the merits of the matter, the impugned judgment and decree in terms of paragraph Nos.13 and 14 be quashed and set aside and the matter again be remanded back before the Court below at the stage when it was remanded by the Page 5 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:27:41 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3685/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined Division Bench of this Court (Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jayant Patel and Hon'ble Ms.Justice Sonia Gokani as their Lordships were then) by order dated 09.12.2013 passed in First Appeal No.2733 of 2009 and other allied matters.
6. In view of the above consensus arrived at between both the learned advocates appearing for the parties, reasons are not assigned for remanding the matter back to the Court below by threadbare discussion of the facts, issues and evidence led before the Court below.
7. The impugned judgment and order dated 9th March, 2017/decree dated 4th September, 2021 is therefore quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court below with following directions :
(i) The Court below shall dispose of the Suit being Special Civil Suit No.12 Page 6 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:27:41 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3685/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined of 1983 (Old) (New No.4/2002) within a stipulated period i.e. on or before 31st December, 2023 after giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides to make their submissions on the basis of the evidence already led pursuant to the remand made by the Division Bench of this Court (Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jayant Patel and Hon'ble Ms.Justice Sonia Gokani as their Lordships were then) by order dated 09.12.2013 passed in First Appeal No.2733 of 2009 and other allied matters.
(ii) It is expected from the Court below to give reasons and pass a judgment and decree after considering the submissions to be made by both the sides on merits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following decisions has Page 7 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:27:41 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3685/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined held time and again the importance of giving reasons and pass an order after analyzing the evidence and submission made before the Court :
"(1) Sant Lal Gupta & Ors vs Modern Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited & Others reported in (2010) 13 SCC 336 :
"27. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is for the forum to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of the justice - delivery system, to make it known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice. "The giving of reasons for a decision is Page 8 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:27:41 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3685/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before Courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the Court concerned had really applied its mind." The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected. [Vide: State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar AIR 2004 SC 1794; State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal & Ors. (2004) 5 SCC 573; Vishnu Dev Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 172; Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle & Ors.
(2008) 9 SCC 407; State of
Uttaranchal & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar
Singh Negi AIR 2008 SC 2026;
U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Jagdish Prasad
Gupta AIR 2009 SC 2328; Ram Phal v.Page 9 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:27:41 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3685/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined State of Haryana & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 258; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sada Ram & Anr. (2009) 4 SCC 422; and The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 1285)."
(2) Union of India and Others Versus Jai Prakash Singh and Another reported in (2007) 10 SCC 712 :
"11. 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.
12. 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 Page 10 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:27:41 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3685/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined 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."
(3) CHAIRMAN, Disciplinary Authority, RANI LAKSHMI BAI Kshetriya Gramin Bank Versus JAGDISH SHARAN VARSHNEY AND ORS reported in (2009) 4 SCC 240 :
Page 11 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:27:41 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3685/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined
"8. The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of S.N.Mukherjee vs. Union of India reported in (1990) 4 SCC 594, is that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority has applied its mind or not? Also, giving of reasons minimizes chances of arbitrariness. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in a judicial or quasi-judicial order, even if it is an order of affirmation."
(4) U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Versus Sheo Narain Kushwaha & Ors. reported in (2011) 6 SCC 456 :
"10. Unless the order is reasoned, there will be no way of knowing whether the appellate court has examined the appeal before deciding that it did not deserve admission. As a limited right to appeal to Supreme Court is available against the appellate judgments of the High Court, unless there are reasons in the order of dismissal, it will not be possible for the Supreme Court to examine whether the High Court has rightly rejected the appeal. The appellant who has filed the first appeal in pursuance of a statutory Page 12 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:27:41 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3685/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined right to file such appeal, paying necessary court fee, can legitimately expect reappreciation of the evidence and re-
determination of the questions raised, unless the statute providing for the appeal provides otherwise.
11. This court has repeatedly pointed out that any dismissal of an first appeal even at the preliminary hearing stage, should be supported by brief reasons. In Kiranmal Zumerlal Borana Marwadi vs. Dnyanoba Bajirao Khot-[1983 (4) SCC 223] this court observed :
"As numerous points both of law and facts appear to have been raised in the appeal, which again were sought to be canvassed before us, in fairness to the parties and to us, some reasons ought to have appeared in the judgment indicating what appealed to the High Court to be in entire agreement with the learned trial Judge. Let it be remembered that it was the first appeal against the decision of the trial Court and therein the appellant can and has raised serious questions of law and disputed decision on facts. We, therefore, think that this is pre-eminently a fit case which ought to have been admitted and disposed of on merits."Page 13 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:27:41 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3685/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined
12. In Jayanmti De vs. Abani Kanta Barat - AIR 2000 SC 3578, this Court observed thus :
"We are not satisfied that the High Court has considered the appeal on merits. Even if the dismissal is under Order 41 Rule 11 and the High Court is not required under Sub-rule (4) to record in brief its grounds for doing so, it is not a carte blanche to enable the appellate court to avoid recording any reason whatsoever. We think that the appeal required consideration on merits. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the appeal to the High Court for disposal of the same on merits and in accordance with law by stating the reasons."
13. Under section 54 of the LA Act, a party aggrieved by the award of the Reference Court is entitled to file an appeal against the award of the Reference Court as of right. Such appeals which mostly relate to the correctness of the quantum of compensation or apportionment, raise both questions of facts as well as questions of law. The provisions of Order 41 of the Code are made applicable to such appeals. The High Court, should therefore, if it wants to dismiss an appeal summarily Page 14 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:27:41 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3685/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined without issuing notice, assign brief reasons, though not required to render a `brief judgment'. Subject to the requirements and limitations placed by the statute providing for the appeals, appeals may be disposed of summarily, where so provided. `Summary decision' refers to a decision which is short and quick and not elaborate. But it does not mean `non-reasoned dismissal', as any order appealable in law has to be reasoned. A dismissal in limine refers to dismissal at the outset. Summary dismissal or dismissal in limine does not refer to a dismissal without assigning reasons."
(5) Union of India Versus Ibrahim Uddin & Anr reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148 :
"44. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative order, but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is for the forum to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the Page 15 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:27:41 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3685/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined fundamentals of sound administration of the justice - delivery system, to make it known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice. The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected. (Vide: State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar, AIR 2004 SC 1794; State of Uttaranchal & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi, AIR 2008 SC 2026; The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 1285; and Sant Lal Gupta & Ors. v. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited & Ors., (2010) 13 SCC 336).
45. In The Land Acquisition Officer, Page 16 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:27:41 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3685/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore v. H. Narayanaiah etc. etc., AIR 1976 SC 2403, while dealing with the issue, a three judge Bench of this Court held as under:
"We are of the opinion that the High Court should have recorded its reasons to show why it found the admission of such evidence to be necessary for some substantial reason. And if it found it necessary to admit it an opportunity should have been given to the appellant to rebut any inference arising from its insistence by leading other evidence." (Emphasis added) A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Basayya I. Mathad v. Rudrayya S. Mathad and Ors., AIR 2008 SC 1108.
46. A Constitution Bench of this Court in K. Venkataramiah (Supra), while dealing with the same issue held:
"It is very much to be desired that the courts of appeal should not overlook the provisions of cl. (2) of the Rule and should record their reasons for admitting additional evidence..... The omission to record reason must, therefore, be treated as a serious defect. Even so, we are Page 17 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:27:41 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3685/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined unable to persuade ourselves that this provision is mandatory."
(Emphasis added) In the said case, the court after examining the record of the case came to the conclusion that the appeal was heard for a long time and the application for taking additional evidence on record was filed during the final hearing of the appeal. In such a fact-situation, the order allowing such application did not vitiate for want of reasons."
(6) Kumari Shaima Jafari Versus Irphan @ Gulfam and Ors reported in (2013) 14 SCC 348 :
"12. This Court, in Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and others[6] and State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar[7], had held that "reason" is the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless. It is dangerous to forget that reason is the essential foundation on which a conclusion can be based. Giving reasons for an order is the sacrosanct requirement of law which is the aim of every civilized society. And intellect respects it. It would not be out of place to state here that the reasons in criminal jurisprudence must flow from the material on record and in this regard, a line from Bossuet is worth reproducing: -Page 18 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:27:41 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3685/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined "The heart has reasons that reason does not understand." We have said so as a Judge should not be guided by any kind of emotion, prejudice or passion while giving his reasons.
13. At this juncture, it may be instructive to sit in a Time Machine and have a look at what our "Shastras" have stated about the role of an adjudicator. While describing the role of a Judge, it has been stated thus:-
"Vivaade pruchhati pprasnam pratiprasnam tathaiva cha Nyayapurvancha vadati pradvivaaka iti smrutah." The free English translation of the same would be that he who puts questions and counter questions (to petitioner and respondent) in a dispute and gives his concluding observations is called 'Praadvivaakah' or a Judge.
14. In certain ancient texts while describing a Judge, it has been laid down that a Judge is also called a 'vivaakah' i.e. he who considers the matter from legal spectrum after applying his mind. Be it noted 'vivek' means conscience. In another place in smritis it has been said that adjudicator has to decide the dispute with great care and caution after patient hearing.
15. A Judge in the times of yore in this country was wedded to Dharma.Page 19 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:27:41 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3685/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined We are not going to delve into the connotative expanse of the term "Dharma". In one context, it has been stated that Dharma is not a thing that can be determined by any person as per his whim. Thus, personal whim or for that matter any individual notion has no place while doing an act of justice which is a facet of Dharma. In Nyaya Shastras, there is reference to the methodology of inference which involves a combination and inductive and deductive logic. The logic, as is understood, means :-
"The science of right reasoning or the science of discussion."
16. We have referred to the aforesaid concepts solely for the purpose that even the ancient wisdom commanded that the decision has to be founded on reasons."
(7) S.N.Mukherjee Versus Union of India reported in (1990) 4 SCC 594 :
11. In the United States the courts have insisted upon recording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority on the premise that the authority should give clear indication that it has exercised the discretion with which it has been empowered because "administrative process will best be vindicated by clarity in its Page 20 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:27:41 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3685/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined exercise" Phelps Dodge Corporation v. National Labour Relations Board, [1940] 85 Law Edn. 1271 at P. 1284.
The said requirement of record- ing of reasons has also been justified on the basis that such a decision is subject to judicial review and "the Courts cannot exercise their duty of review unless they are advised of the considerations underlying the action under review" and that "the orderly functioning of the process of review requires that the grounds upon which the administra- tive agency acted be clearly disclosed and adequately sustained." Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation, [1942] 87 Law Ed. 626 at P. 636. In John T. Dunlop v. Waiter Bachowski, [1975] 44 Law Ed. 2 377) it has been observed that a statement of reasons serves purposes other than judicial review inasmuch as the reasons promotes thought by the authority and compels it to cover the rele- vant points and eschew irrelevancies and assures careful administrative consideration. The Federal Administrative Procedure Act, 1946 which prescribed the basic procedural principles which are to govern formal administrative proce- dures contained an express provision (Section g(b) ) to the effect that all decisions shall indicate a statement of findings and conclusions as well as reasons or Page 21 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:27:41 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3685/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined basis the, for upon all the material issues of fact, law or discretion presented on the record. The said provision is now contained in Section 557(c) of Title 5 of the United States Code (1982 edition). Similar provision is contained in the state statutes.
12. In England the position at Common law is that there is no requirement that reasons should be given for its decision by the administrative authority (See: Regina v. Gaming Board for Great Britain Ex Party Benaim and Khaida, [1970] 2 Q.B. 417 at p. 431 and McInnes v. Onslow-Fane and Another, [1978] 1 W.L.R. 1520 at p. 1531). There are, however, observa- tions in some judgments wherein the importance of reasons has been emphasised. In his dissenting judgment in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union and Others, [1971] 2 Q.B. 175 Lord Denning M.R., has observed that: "the giving of reasons is one of the fundamental of good administration."
13. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree, [1974] ICR 120 Sir John Donaldson, as President of the National Industrial Relations Court, has observed that "failure to give reasons amounts to a denial of justice.
Page 22 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:27:41 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3685/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined
35. The decisions of this Court referred to above indicate that with regard to the requirement to record reasons the approach of this Court is more in line with that of the American Courts. An important consideration which has weighed with the Court for holding that an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record the reasons for its decision, is that such a decision is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution as well as the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution and that the reasons, if recorded, would enable this Court or the High Courts to effectively exercise the appellate or supervisory power. But this is not the sole consideration. The other considerations which have also weighed with the Court in taking this view are that the requirement of recording reasons would (i) guarantee consid- eration by the authority; (ii) introduce clarity in the decisions; and (iii) minimise chances of arbitrariness in decisionmaking. In this regard a distinction has been drawn between ordinary Courts of law and tribunals and authorities exercising judicial functions on the ground that a Judge is trained to look at things objectively uninfluenced by con-
Page 23 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:27:41 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3685/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined siderations of policy or expediency whereas an executive officer generally looks at things from the standpoint of policy and expediency.
36. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi- judicial func- tions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its juris- diction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the re-
cording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrari- ness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to deci- sions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an admin- istrative authority exercising quasijudicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be Page 24 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:27:41 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3685/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elabo- rate as in the decision of a Court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge.
40. For the reasons aforesaid, it must be concluded that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administra- tive authority exercising judicial or quasi- judicial func- tions is required to record the reasons for its decision."
(iii) In view of the above conspectus of law, the Court below is to decide Page 25 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:27:41 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3685/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined the issues which are framed by the Division Bench by giving categorical findings after considering the evidence which was led and the submissions to be made by both the sides.
(iv) The Court below shall not be influence by any of the observation made in the impugned judgment and decree and pass a fresh de-novo order as if the impugned judgment and decree was never passed.
(v) It is made clear that no further evidence shall be led by either side and the Court below shall pass the fresh de-novo judgment and decree on the basis of the submissions to be made by both the sides.
(vi) It will be open for both the Page 26 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:27:41 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3685/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2023 undefined sides to place on record the documents which are filed before this Court in the proceedings initiated under Order 39 Rule 2(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as well as the Special Civil Applications filed by both the sides.
8. Learned advocates for both the sides submitted that both the sides will jointly apply before the trial Court for the continuation of the interim-relief which was in operation on the date of passing of the impugned Judgment and Decree.
9. The Appeals are accordingly disposed of.
Civil Applications are also disposed of in view of the disposal of the Appeals. Direct service is permitted.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) PALAK Page 27 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:27:41 IST 2023