Himachal Pradesh High Court
Budhi Singh vs State Of H.P. And Others on 2 December, 2016
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 4548 of 2009.
Decided on: 02.12.2016.
.
Budhi Singh ....Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. and others ... Respondents.
Coram
of
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the petitioner. : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents
rt : Mr. Vikram Thakur and Ms. Parul Negi,
Dy. AGs for respondents No. 1 to 3.
: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate for
respondent No. 4.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief.
i) "That the order dated 27.10.2009 at Annexure P-7 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi exercising powers of Director of Consolidation under the H.P.Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 in case No. 1/2009 may very kindly be quashed and set aside.
ii) That the order dated 24.5.2007 passed by the Consolidation officer at Annexure P-5 in Revenue Apeal 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:40:00 :::HCHP 2No. 75/2006, titled Parkash Singh v. Budhi Singh may also be quashed and set aside.
iii) That the respondent may very kindly be directed to .
produce the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court."
2. The grievance raised by way of the writ petition is that feeling aggrieved by an order which was passed by Consolidation Officer, Hamirpur dated 24th May, 2007, the of petitioner had preferred a revision petition under Section 54 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, which revision petition rt stands dismissed by the Revisional Authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi by way of the impugned order which is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the impugned order is an unreasoned and non-speaking order and no findings have been returned in the said order on the grounds which were taken in the revision petition by the petitioner while assailing the order of Consolidation Officer.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the pleadings of the case. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that it prima facie is a non-
speaking order as no findings have been returned by the learned Revisional Authority on the grounds which were raised ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:40:00 :::HCHP 3 in the revision petition filed against order dated 24.05.2007 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Hamirpur. The only .
reasoning which has been assigned by the Divisional Commissioner to uphold the order passed by the Consolidation Officer is that Consolidation Officer, Hamirpur had visited the spot in the presence of parties and before passing the of impugned order, the Consolidation Officer had gone through the record. In my considered view, this reasoning is not rt sufficient to uphold the order passed by the Consolidation Officer as the Revisional Authority after due application of mind should have had returned findings also on the grounds which were taken in the revision petition against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer.
4. It is settled law that recording of reasons is necessary if decisions affect any one prejudicially. Even a quasi-judicial authority has to record reasons in support of its conclusion and insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done but it must also appear to have been done. Besides this, recording of reasons operates as a restraint of any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi judicial power. It can only ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:40:00 :::HCHP 4 be inferred from the reasons assigned in the order as to whether discretion has been exercised by the decision maker .
on relevant ground and by disregarding extraneous consideration. Besides this, reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts and insistence of reasons is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.
of These settled principles of law have not been taken into consideration by the Revisional Authority while passing the rt impugned order.
5. Accordingly, order dated 27th October, 2009 passed by the Revisional Authority in case No. 1/2009, dated 27.10.2009, is set aside and the case is remanded back to the said authority to decide the same afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties. It is made clear that said authority shall dispose of the matter by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Keeping in consideration the fact that the revision petition is pertaining to the year 2007, this Court hopes and expects that the Revisional Authority shall decide the same, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six months from today.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:40:00 :::HCHP 56. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also .
stand disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge 2nd December, 2016.
(narender) of rt ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:40:00 :::HCHP