Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ambrish Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2023
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 5 th OF JANUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 245 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
AMBRISH MISHRA S/O BHOOPKISHORE MISHRA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, BASANT KI GALI IN FRONT OF
RAGHUNATH JI MANDIR, TEHSIL CHANDERI, DISTT.
ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRALOK KUMAR TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPTT. OF REVENUE,
STATE OF M.P., VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER TEHSIL CHANDERI
DISTRICT ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. TEHSILDAR CHANDERI DISRICT ASHOKNAGAR.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. COLLECTOR DISTRICT ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DEVENDRA CHAUBEY - GOVT. ADVOCATE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dated 28.11.2022 passed in review jurisdiction by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division whereby, the Review 2 Petition preferred against the order dated 23.09.2022 passed by Addl. Commissioner in Appeal No.94/22-23 was dismissed without adjudicating the controversy holding that the contents of provisions of Section 51 of M.P. Land Revenue Code since are not met out, the review petition is not maintainable. Section 51 of MPLRC is quoted below.
"51. Review of orders. - (1) The Board or any Revenue Officer may, either suo motu or on an application of any party interested, review any order passed by it or him, or by any predecessor-in-office and pass such order in reference thereto as it or he may think fit : Provided that -
(i) if the Commissioner, Collector or District Survey Officer thinks it necessary to review any order which he has not himself passed, he shall first obtain the sanction of the Board, and if an officer subordinate to the Collector or District Survey Officer proposes to review an order, whether passed by himself or his predecessor, he shall first obtain the sanction in writing of the Collector or District Survey Officer to whom he is immediate subordinate;
(ii) no order shall be varied or reversed unless notice has been given to the parties interested to appear and be heard in support of such order;
(iii) no order from which an appeal has been made, or which is the subject of any revision proceedings shall, so long as such appeal or proceedings are pending, be reviewed;
(iv) no order affecting any question of right between private persons shall be reviewed except on the application of a party to the proceedings, and no application for the review of such order shall be entertained unless it is made within forty-five days from the passing of the order".
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that Section 51 of the MPLRC does not lay any ground on which, a review can be maintained rather, as soon as any application is moved before the authority for reviewing the order, then the authority has to pass a reasoned order. Even otherwise, since the second appeal has not been decided on merits, Review Petition on that count, is maintainable.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that learned Addl. Commissioner has rightly pointed out that the contents of provisions of Section 3 51 of MPLRC are not attracted so far as review petition is concerned, therefore, dismissal of the Review Petition in the circumstances, is sustainable.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Masood Ahmed, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 has held as under:-
"( 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 life blood 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 4 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 Harward Law Review 731-737).
(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 (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".5
(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".
Here in the case in hand, from perusal of order Annexure P/2 which is an original appellate Court order, it is apparent that the second appeal was not decided on merits which is against settled principles of natural justice as even quasi judicial authority is required to pass a reasoned and speaking order.
Even from the impugned order annexure P/1 dated 28.11.2022, it is seen that the principle of natural justice had not been followed in as much no reasoning on merits had been assigned by the Commissioner, rather it is totally a non-speaking order, against which review would be maintainable and observation made in the review order regarding no ground for review as provided under Section 51 of MPLRC is made out, is unsustainable.
Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, order dated 28.11.2022 is hereby set-aside. The order Annexure P/2 dated 23.09.2022 is also set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the Addl. Commissioner for adjudication of the appeal afresh.
Subject to deposit of 50% of the amount of recovery pending against the petitioner, other part shall remain stayed till decision of the second appeal.
With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Rks RAM KUMAR SHARMA 2023.01.05 18:50:39 +05'30'