Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.19 seconds)Section 55 in Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 [Entire Act]
S.N. Mukherjee vs Union Of India on 28 August, 1990
In the case of Mukherjee v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1984, the Supreme Court dealt with this aspect in detail while dealing with sections 162, 164 of the Army Act, 1950 and the Rules made thereunder. After considering the various decisions, the court observed that an important consideration which has weighed with the court for holding that an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record the reasons for its decision, is that such a decision is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under article 136 of the Constitution as well as the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under article 227 of the Constitution and that the reasons, if recorded, would enable the court to effectively exercise the appellate or supervisory power. The court further observed that the other considerations which have also weighed with the court in taking this view are that the requirement of recording reasons would (i) guarantee consideration by the authority; (ii) introduce clarity in the decisions; and (iii) minimise chances of arbitrariness in decision-making. The court has further observed that the requirement that reasons to be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review on the ground that it would exclude the chances of arbitrariness and ensure a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The court has further observed in paragraphs 38 and 39 as under :
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Gujarat University Act, 1949
The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
Section 162 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 164 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Woolcombers Of India Ltd vs Woolcombers Workers Union And Another on 27 August, 1973
Apart from this specific provision, it is clear that the Sales Tax Commissioner was exercising quasi-judicial power under section 55 of the Act. It is well-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 (reference may be made to a decision in the case of Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Woolcombers Workers' Union AIR 1973 SC 2758, Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1976 SC 1785, and Mukherjee v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1984).