Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 193 (PAT)

Winsome International Ltd. v. State Of Bihar

2006-02-24

S.K.KATRIAR

body2006
Judgment 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the typographical error in paragraph-1 of the writ petition. 2. Heard Mr. R.K. Agrawal for the petitioner, learned JC to Standing Counsel No. VI and Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah for respondent nos. 2 and 3. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.9.2003 (Annexure 20), whereby respondent no. 2 (Managing Director, Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board, Patna), in exercise of the revisional powers under the Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1960, has allowed the revision application of respondent no. 3 (Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Tajpur), and has set aside the appellate order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, submitted that the revisional order shows non-application of the mind and does not assign reasons in support of the order. He submits that the revisional authority in the scheme of the Act is bound to apply his mind to each and every contention of the parties before him and dispose of the same by a reasoned order. He, inter alia, relies on the judgment of this Court reported in 2003(4) PLJR 219 (Sunil Kumar V/s. State of Bihar). Learned coun sel for the petitioner, however, concedes that he does not raise the question of delay in filing the revision application. 3. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 has supported the impugned order. 4. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the impugned order covers ten paragraphs. The case of the parties and the contentions have been set out from paragraphs 1 to 9, and the matter has been disposed of by paragraph 10 which is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: "Heard both the parties concerned and perused the connected records and papers submitted by both sides. Market Secretary is justified in his argument mentioned above. I hold the view that impugned order of appellate authority is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1960 and Rules made thereunder, and as such it is dismissed." 5. The impugned order ex-facie shows non-application of the mind and does not assign reasons. The learned revisional authority must remind himself that he is exercising guas/-judicial powers and has to apply his independent, judicial mind to the issues before him and dispose of the contentions of the parties by a reasoned order. The impugned order ex-facie shows non-application of the mind and does not assign reasons. The learned revisional authority must remind himself that he is exercising guas/-judicial powers and has to apply his independent, judicial mind to the issues before him and dispose of the contentions of the parties by a reasoned order. Such mechanical acceptance of the contentions of the petitioner before him, and equally mechanically adopting the reasonings of the learned appellate authority, without assigning any reason, shows not only complete non-application of the mind, and also speaks of an escapist tendency to avoid the effort needed to dispose of the same effectively. Such an in disposing of matters in discharging quasi-judicial functions can never be appreciated. 6. In view of the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Mahesh Harilal V/s. B.H. Narsimhan. reported in AIR 1982 Gujarat 298, learned counsel for the petitioner does not raise the question of delay in filing the revision application. 7. The impugned order (Annexure 20) suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned revisionai authority who shall examine all issues of law and facts raised by the parties before him and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Since it is a fairly old matter, as jointly prayed for by learned counsel for the parties, let fresh service of notice to them be dispensed with fixing 20.6.2006 for their appearance before the learned revisional authority. 8. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.