Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

27. Replying to this, the learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 26 of the decision reported in Shri Sachidanand Pandey v. The State of West Bengal . The said paragraph is as under:

Dr. Singhvi cited before us the well known decisions of this Court in Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. S.D. Agarwal ; Barium Chemicals v. A.J. Rajan and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner to urge that even an administrative decision must be arrived at after taking into account all relevant considerations and eschewing irrelevant considerations and that the reasons for an order must find a place in the order itself and those reasons cannot be supplemented later by fresh reasons in the shape of an affidavit or otherwise. The submission was that neither the Cabinet memorandum of January 7, 1981 nor the Cabinet memorandum of September 9, 1981 revealed that relevant considerations had been taken into account. What was not said in either of the Cabinet memoranda, it was said, could not later be supplemented by considerations which were never present to the mind of the decision making authority. We do not agree with the submission of Dr. Singhvi. The proposition that a decision must be arrived at after taking into account all relevant considerations, eschewing all irrelevant considerations cannot for a moment be doubted. We have already pointed out that relevant considerations were not ignored and, indeed, were taken into account by the Government of West Bengal. It is not one of these cases where the evidence is first gathered and a decision is later arrived at one fine morning and the decision is incorporated in a reasoned order. This is a case where discussions have necessarily to stretch over a long period of time. Several factors have to be independently and separately weighed and considered. This is a case where the decision and the reasons for the decision can only be gathered by looking at the entire course of events and circumstances stretching over the period from the initiation of the proposal to the taking of the final decision. It is important to note that unlike Mohinder Singh Gill's case where the court was dealing with a Statutory Order made by a statutory functionary who could not, therefore, be allowed to supplement the grounds of his order by later explanations, the present is a case where neither a statutory function nor a statutory functionary is involved but the transaction bears a commercial though public character which can only be settled after protracted discussion, clarification and consultation with all interested persons. The principle of Mohinder Singh Gill's case has no application to the factual situation here.