Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (1.43 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S.N. Mukherjee vs Union Of India on 28 August, 1990
25. Another Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court, in the case of S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India
(1990) 4 SCC 594, while referring to the English law
as well as the judgments of the Supreme Court, stated
that the failure to give reasons amounts to denial of
justice. A party appearing before the Tribunal is
entitled to know, either expressly or inferentially the
reasons stated by the Tribunal, and what it is to
which the Tribunal is addressing its mind. The
decision should be in the form of a reasoned
document available to the parties affected and thus,
the party should be informed of the reasons.
State Of U.P. vs Battan And Ors. on 4 May, 2000
14. Consistent with the view expressed by
the Supreme Court in the afore-referred
cases, in the case of State of U.P. v. Battan
and Ors. (2001)10SCC607 , the Supreme
Court held as under:
State Of Rajasthan vs Bhanwar Singh And Ors. [Alongwith ... on 6 May, 2004
17. Following this very view, the Supreme
Court in another very recent judgment
delivered on February, 22, 2008, in the case
of State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Prasad
Jain Criminal Appeal No. 360/2008 (Arising
out of SLP (Cri.) No. 904/2007) stated that
"reason is the heartbeat of every
conclusion, and without the same it
becomes lifeless."
Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs The Collector, District Raigad & Ors on 2 March, 2012
The Apex
Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. Collector
(2012) 4 SCC 407, reiterated that it is a settled
preposition of law that even in administrative matters,
the reasons should be recorded as it is incumbent
upon authorities to pass a speaking and reasoned
order. The Court noticed that the expanding horizon of
25
the principles of natural justice provides for the
requirement to record reasons unless recording of
such reasons is specifically excluded by a Statute.
Maharashtra State Board Of Secondary ... vs K.S. Gandhi And Ors on 12 March, 1991
In the case of
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education vs. K.S. Gandhi (1991) 2 SCC
716, the Supreme Court had emphasized that it is
implicit that principles of natural justice or fair play
do require recording of reasons as a part of fair
procedure. In an administrative decision, its
order/decision itself may not contain reasons. Even if
it is not the requirement of rules, but at least, the
record should disclose reasons. It also held that
recording of reasons excludes chances of arbitrariness
and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of
decision making. The Court also noticed that omission
to record reasons may vitiate the order. The Court
while noticing that omnipresence and omniscience of
the principles of natural justice act as deterrence to
arrive at arbitrary decisions in flagrant infraction of
fair play, held as under:
Basudeo Tiwary vs Sido Kanhu University And Others on 17 September, 1998
30. Reference could also be made to the judgments in
the case of DTC Mazdoor Union v. DTC, AIR 1991 SC
101 and Basudeo Tiwari v. Sido Kanhu University,
(1998) 8 SCC 194."