Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 418 (GUJ)

Koli Bijalbhai Nathubhai v. V. C. Trivedi

2004-07-02

M.R.SHAH

body2004
M. R. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Shri Sood, learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 and Shri E. G. Patel, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondents No. 5 to 8. With the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. ( 2 ) THE petitioner, owner of land bearing survey Nos. 7 and 8 of Village Bhutia, Taluka palitana, District-Bhavnagar, has preferred the present Special Civil Application under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 3rd June 2003 passed by the revisional authority, i. e. learned Special Secretary, revenue Department (Appeals), State of gujarat, Ahmedabad, in Revision Application no. 15 of 1997 in dismissing the same and confirming the order passed by the Collector, bhavnagar dated 26. 5. 1997. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was owner of land bearing Survey No. 7 and 8 situate at Village bhutia, Taluka-Palitana, District-Bhavnagar. He applied for allotment of Government land bearing Survey No. 123/1 which was just adjacent to the lands bearing Survey No. 7 and 8 for the purpose of agricultural use. The Deputy Collector, Palitana had by order dated July 16 1996 granted land bearing survey No. 123/1 for agricultural use. 3. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Deputy Collector, palitana dated 16. 7. 1986 the respondents No. 5 to 8 herein had preferred appeal before the collector, Bhavnagar. The Collector, bhavnagar by his judgment and order dated 26. 5. 1997 allowed the said appeal by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the deputy Collector, Palitana dated 16. 7. 1996. 3. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the collector, Bhavnagar dated 26. 5. 1997 in allowing the appeal preferred by respondents no. 5 to 8 herein and quashing an setting aside the order passed by the Deputy collector dated 16. 7. 1996 by which the land bearing Survey No. 123/1 was allotted to the petitioner, the petitioner preferred revision application before the State Government, i. e. learned Special Secretary, Revenue department (Appeals), State of Gujarat, ahmedabad, which was numbered as Revision application No. 15 of 1997. The learned special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), State of Gujarat, vide his judgment dated 3/20. 6. The learned special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), State of Gujarat, vide his judgment dated 3/20. 6. 2003 had dismissed the said revision application confirming the order passed by the Collector, Bhavnagar, dated 26. 5. 1997. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), State of Gujarat, Ahmedabad, dated 3/20. 6. 2003 passed in Revision Application No. 15 of 1997 in dismissing the same and confirming the order passed by the Collector, bhavnagar dated 26. 5. 1997, the petitioner had preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of india. ( 5 ) SHRI BM Mangukia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that apart from the merits of the case the judgment and order passed by the revisional authority is a non-speaking order and no reason whatsoever has been assigned even while rejecting the revision application and confirming the order passed by the collector dated 26. 5. 1997. Under the circumstances it is submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the revisional authority dated 3. 6. 2003 is against the principles of natural Justice. He has further submitted that the impugned judgment and order dated 3. 6. 2003 is an ex parte order. He has further submitted that hearing of revision application was kept on 30th May 2003 however the learned advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner was busy in another Court and hence nobody could remain present on behalf of the petitioner, and on the same day Clerk of the Advocate had gone to obtain adjournment but when he approached the office of revisional authority he was informed that the matter was kept for orders and request for adjournment was refused. Under the circumstances it was requested to quash and set aside the judgment and order passed by the revisional authority and remand the matter to the revisional authority for deciding the same afresh on merits. ( 6 ) SHRI E. G. Patel, learned advocate has however supported the order passed by the revisional authority. Shri B. G. Patel has submitted that on the day on which hearing was fixed nobody remained present on behalf of the petitioner and therefore the revisional authority wait justified in proceeding further with the matter ex parte. ( 6 ) SHRI E. G. Patel, learned advocate has however supported the order passed by the revisional authority. Shri B. G. Patel has submitted that on the day on which hearing was fixed nobody remained present on behalf of the petitioner and therefore the revisional authority wait justified in proceeding further with the matter ex parte. He has also further submitted that the judgment and order passed by the Collector, Bhavnagar dated 26. 5. 1997 was just and proper and considering the same the revisional authority has rightly rejected the revision application. However, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents could not support the judgment and order passed by the revisional authority on the ground that the impugned judgment and order is not a speaking and reasoned order. ( 7 ) HEARD the learned advocates for the parties. The revisional authority, while dismissing the revision application, has not assigned any reason whatsoever in the order which is a non-speaking order and therefore the present Special Civil Application is required to be allowed on that ground alone. From the bare reading of the Judgment and order passed by the revisional authority, it is clear that no reason whatsoever has been assigned by the revisional authority in dismissing the revision application and confirming the order passed by the Collector, bhavnagar. Recording of the reasons in support of the order is a part of natural justice and every quasi-judicial authority, including administrative Tribunal, is bound to record reasons in support of orders passed by it. The Honble Supreme Court of India, in the case of M. P. INDUSTRIES V/s. UNION OF india, REPORTED IN AIR 1966 8c 671. has observed as under ;"in the context of a welfare State, administrative tribunals have come to stay. Indeed, they are the necessary concomitants of a welfare State. But arbitrariness in their functioning destroys the concept of a welfare state itself. Self-discipline and supervision exclude or at any rate minimise arbitrariness. The least a tribunal can do is to disclose its mind. The compulsion of disclosure guarantees consideration. The condition to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate minimises arbitrariness; it gives satisfaction to the party against whom the order is made; and it also enables an appellate or supervisory court to keep the tribunals within bounds. A reasoned order is a desirable condition of judicial disposal. "7. 1. The compulsion of disclosure guarantees consideration. The condition to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate minimises arbitrariness; it gives satisfaction to the party against whom the order is made; and it also enables an appellate or supervisory court to keep the tribunals within bounds. A reasoned order is a desirable condition of judicial disposal. "7. 1. Putting emphasis on recording of reasons by administrative tribunals in support of the orders passed by them, the Honble supreme Court observed in the ease of S. M. MUKHERJEE V/s. UNION OF INDIA, reported IN (1990) 4 SCC 594 . as under;"giving of reasons is an essential element of administration of justice. A right to reason is, therefore, an indispensable part of a sound system of judicial review. Reasoned decision is not only for the purpose of showing that the citizen is receiving justice, but also a valid discipline for the tribunal itself. Therefore, statement of reasons is one of the essentials of Justice. " ( 8 ) A party has a right to know not only the result of enquiry but also reasons in support of decision. A party affected must know why and on what grounds an order has been passed against him. If the order passed by the adjudicating authority is subject to appeal or revision, the party or revisional court will not be in a position to understand what weighed with the authority and whether the grounds on which the order was passed were relevant, existent and correct, and exercise of right of appeal would be futility. The Courts insist upon for reasons in order support of the order on three grounds; (1) the party aggrieved in a proceeding before the High court or the Supreme Court has the opportunity to demonstrate that the reasons which persuaded the authority to reject his case were erroneous; (2) the obligation to record reasons operates as a deterrent against possible arbitrary action by the executive authority invested with the judicial power; and (3) it gives satisfaction to the authority against whom the order is made. While emphasizing the need to pass a reasoned order, the Honble Supreme Court of India, in the case of NOTIFIED director. AND OTHERS - (2002) 10 SCC 87 has observed as under:". . . . . . . . While emphasizing the need to pass a reasoned order, the Honble Supreme Court of India, in the case of NOTIFIED director. AND OTHERS - (2002) 10 SCC 87 has observed as under:". . . . . . . . The reasons are the flesh and blood of judicial adjudication and such reasons must be shown in the orders which are liable to be challenged in the superior court. . . . . " ( 9 ) UNDER the circumstances, as in the impugned order dated 3. 6. 2003 no reasons are assigned for rejecting the revision application and confirming the order dated 26. 5. 1997 passed by the Collector, the impugned judgment and order passed by the revisional authority is required to be quashed and set aside as it is against the principles of natura justice and it is accordingly quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Special Secretary, Revenue department (Appeal), State of Gujarat, ahmedabad, for deciding the Revision application No. 15 of 1997 afresh in accordance with law and on merits and to pass a reasoned and speaking order. Such an exercise is required to be carried out by the revisional authority as early as possible and within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. .