Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)
Jeetendra Kumar Ray vs The State Of Bihar on 3 November, 2022 cites

S.N. Mukherjee vs Union Of India on 28 August, 1990

In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India [1990 (4) SCC 594: (AIR 1990 SC 1984)], it has been held that Patna High Court CWJC No.14780 of 2022 dt.03-11-2022 13/14 irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review, the recording of reasons by an administrative authority by itself serves a salutary purpose, viz., "it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision- making."
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 1274 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Namit Sharma vs Union Of India on 13 September, 2012

21. Referring to the requirement of adherence to principles of natural justice in adjudicatory process, this Court in Namit Sharma v. Union of India held as under: (SCC p.799, para 99) "99. It is not only appropriate but is a solemn duty of every adjudicatory body, Patna High Court CWJC No.14780 of 2022 dt.03-11-2022 8/14 including the tribunals, to state the reasons in support of its decisions. Reasoning is the soul of a judgment and embodies one of the three pillars on which the very foundation of natural justice jurisprudence rests. It is informative to the claimant of the basis for rejection of his claim, as well as provides the grounds for challenging the order before the higher authority/constitutional court. The reasons, therefore, enable the authorities, before whom an order is challenged, to test the veracity and correctness of the impugned order. In the present times, since the fine line of distinction between the functioning of the administrative and quasi-judicial bodies is gradually becoming faint, even the administrative bodies are required to pass reasoned orders.
Supreme Court of India Cites 94 - Cited by 268 - S Kumar - Full Document

N.M. Desai vs The Testeels Ltd. And Anr. on 17 December, 1975

"6. x x x It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function, it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi- judicial order must be supported by reasons. That has been laid down by a long line of decisions of this Court ending with N.M.Desai v. Testeels Ltd.... It is not suggested that the Collector should have made an elaborate order discussing the arguments of the appellants in the manner of a Court of law. But the order of the Collector could have been a little more explicit and articulate so as to lend assurance that the case of the appellants had been properly considered by him. If courts of law are to be replaced by administrative authorities and tribunals, as indeed, in some kinds of cases, [pic]with the proliferation of Administrative Law, they may have to be so replaced, it is essential that administrative authorities and tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit Patna High Court CWJC No.14780 of 2022 dt.03-11-2022 10/14 reasons in support of the orders made by them. Then alone administrative authorities and tribunals exercising quasi- judicial function will be able to justify their existence and carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence in the adjudicatory process. The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like the principle of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law. x x x."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 56 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1